:'-^.y- 


# 
^ 


0 


I 


^^ 


\THEOLOGXGi^L 

V  ■  .^^ 

Division, ~^^*—' 
Section  _.  /   I  *   f 


^ — ^ 


e 


4 _.  . 


^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/societyoffriendsOOwood 


SOCIETY  OF   FRIENDS    VINDICATED- 


THE  ARGUMENTS  OF  THE  COUNSEL 


JOSEPH  HENDRICKSON, 


IN    A   CAUSE 


DECIDED    IN    THE   COURT   OF    CHANCERY 


STATE  OF   ITE-W  JERSEY, 

BETWEEN 

THOMAS  L.   SHOTWELL,  COMPLAINANT, 

AND 

JOSEPH     HENDRICKSON     AND     STACY     DECOW,    DEFENDANTS, 

/ 
BY  GEORGE'  WOOD  AND  ISAAC  H.  WILLIAMSON, 

Counsellors  at  Law, 

TO  WHICH  IS  APPENDED 

THE  DECISION  OF  THE  COURT, 


TRENTON,  N.  J. 

PRINTED   AND  PUBLISHED  BY  P.  J.  GRAY. 


1832. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  thirty-two,  by  P.  J.  Gray,  in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  of  New  Jersey 


,H£C.CCT18t?  'i^ 

INTRODUCTION. 


■  ■?:<■< 


The  case  which  is  here  reported,  has  excited  a  deep  and  lively 
interest  among  an  extensive  portion  of  the  community,  and  the 
Editor  has  been  induced  to  prepare  this  publication  in  order  to 
gratify  the  curiosity  which  has  been  raised.  He  deems  it  proper 
to  make  a  short  preliminary  statement  of  the  case. 

Many  years  ago  a  subscription  was  got  up,  within  the  precincts 
of  the  Preparative  Meeting  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  at  Cross- 
wicks,  in  the  state  of  New  Jersey,  for  the  purpose  of  raising  a 
fund,  to  estabhsh  a  school  for  the  education  of  the  children  of  the 
indigent  members  of  that  meeting.  Members  subscribed,  and  a 
fund  was  raised,  and  placed  under  the  control  and  direction 
of  the  preparative  meeting,  which  appointed  a  treasurer  to  take 
charge  of  the  school  fund. 

The  plan  originated  in  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Philadelphia,  to 
which  this  meeting  at  Crosswicks  was  attached,  and  under  their 
auspices  similar  funds,  for  the  like  purposes,  were  raised  in  other 
preparative  meetings  belonging  to  their  jurisdiction. 

The  religious  dissention  which  has  arisen  in  the  vSociety  of 
Friends,  and  in  which  Elias  Hicks  has  performed  so  conspicuous  a 
part,  need  not  here  be  particularly  detailed.  After  the  dispute  had 
raged  for  some  time,  the  party  to  which  EUas  Hicks  was  attached, 
usually  denominated  "  Hicksites,"  and  the  opposite  party,  usually 
called  the  "  Orthodox,"  became  completely  established.  They  were 


IV 

absolutely  detached  from  each  other,  in  most  places,  so  as  to  form 
separate  meetings,  and  this  was  the  case  at  Crosswicks,  as  well  as 
at  all  the  other  meetings  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing of  Philadelphia. 

Joseph  Hendrickson  had  been  appointed  the  treasurer  of  this 
school  fund,  by  the  preparative  meeting  at  Crosswicks,  before  this 
controversy  arose,  and  in  his  capacity  of  treasurer,  had  loaned 
out  a  portion  of  the  money  on  interest,  to  Thomas  L.  Shotwell, 
who  was  not  a  member  of  the  Society  of  Friends ;  who  gave  him 
the  bond  and  mortgage,  upon  which  this  suit  is  brought.  When 
these  parties  became  completely  divided,  and  formed  two  sepa- 
rate preparative  meetings  at  Crosswicks,  the  "  Hicksite"  prepara- 
tive meeting  appointed  Stacy  Decow  the  treasurer  of  this  school 
fund.  Thomas  L.  Shotwell,  who  had  become  attached  to  that 
party,  refused  to  recognize  Joseph  Hendrickson,  who  adhered  to 
the  "  Orthodox,"  as  the  lawful  treasurer  any  longer.  Under  the 
direction  of  the  preparative  meeting  held  by  the  "  Orthodox,"  and 
claimed  by  them  to  be  the  true  preparative  meeting  of  the  Socie- 
ty of  Friends,  Joseph  Hendrickson  as  their  treasurer,  demanded 
of  Thomas  L.  Shotwell  the  payment  of  the  interest  due  upon  his 
bond  and  mortgage,  which  he  refused  to  pay  him,  disclaiming  his 
right  to  receive  it. 

Upon  this  refusal,  Joseph  Hendrickson  exhibited  a  bill  of  com- 
plaint in  the  usual  form,  in  the  Court  of  Chancery  of  New  Jersey, 
against  Shotwell,  to  foreclose  his  bond  and  mortgage ;  and  in  his 
bill,  he  set  forth  the  pretension  on  the  part  of  Shotwell,  that  Sta- 
cy Decow  was  the  lawful  treasurer  of  the  school  fund.  And 
for  the  purpose  of  rebutting  this  pretension,  he  set  forth  particu- 
larly the  religious  controversy  in  this  Society  above  alluded  to ; 
their  division  into  two  parties  ;  and  alleged  that  the  ground  of  this 
division  was  on  account  of  religious  doctrines.  He  stated,  that 
there  were  three  prominent  points  of  doctrine  on  which  they  dif- 
fered ;  that  the  ancient  Society  of  Friends  believed  in  the  divinity 


of  the  Saviour,  the  atonement,  and  in  the  inspiration  and  uner- 
ring truth  and  certainty  of  the  holy  Scriptures,  which  tenets  were 
still  held  by  the  "  Orthodox "  party,  and  are,  and  always  have 
been  deemed  fundamental:  but  that  the  "  Hicksite"  party  reject- 
ed these  doctrines.  He  further  charged,  that  the  "  Hicksite " 
party  had  seceded  from  the  institutions  and  government  of  the 
church ;  that  during  the  sitting  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Philadel- 
phia, in  1827,  the  members  composing  the  "Hicksite"  party 
held  private  irregular  meetings,  which  resulted  in  the  issuing,  by 
them,  of  an  address  directed  to  their  own  party,  calling  a  con- 
vention for  the  purpose  of  framing  a  yearly  meeting  of  their  own; 
that  this  convention,  composed  of  their  own  party,  met  accord- 
ingly, and  did  form  a  new  yearly  meeting,  which  was  first  held 
in  Philadelphia,  on  the  second  Monday  in  April,  1828,  and  has 
continued  since  to  be  held  annually,  on  the  same  day  of  the 
month.  He  also  stated,  that  the  old  yearly  meeting,  at  their 
sitting  in  1827,  was  regularly  adjourned  to  meet  the  ensuing 
year,  at  Philadelphia,  on  the  third  Monday  in  April,  agreeably  to 
the  established  rules  of  the  Society ;  that  they  did  so  meet  the  fol- 
lowing year,  and  have  continued  annually  to  assemble  at  that 
time  and  place  ever  since.  And  he  charged,  that  the  "  Hicksite  " 
preparative  meeting  at  Crosswicks,  was  detached  from  the  old 
preparative  meeting,  and  was  connected  with,  and  in  subordina- 
tion to,  the  new  "  Hicksite"  Yearly  Meeting  of  Philadelphia.  He  al- 
leged that  these  proceedings  amounted  to  a  secession  from  the  go- 
vernment of  the  church,  and  that,  as  such  seceders,  they  were  not 
identified  with  the  old  institutions,  and  could  not  carry  the  proper- 
ty with  them.  Upon  the  filing  of  this  bill,  Thomas  L.  Shotwell 
came  into  court,  and  exhibited  a  bill  of  interpleader  against  Joseph 
Hendrickson  and  Stacy  Decow,  the  two  adverse  treasurers,  in 
which  he  set  forth  their  respective  claims  and  pretensions.  Joseph 
Hendrickson  filed  an  answer,  in  which,  he  reiterated  and  insisted 
upon  the  various  grounds  charged  in  his  original  bill. 


VI 

Stacy  Decow,  in  his  answer  lo  this  bill  of  interpleader,  denied 
that  the  three  religious  doctrines  already  stated,  were  fundamental 
doctrines  with  the  Society  of  Friends.  On  the  contrary,  he  said 
they  had  no  creed,  and  every  individual  member  might  believe, 
in  regard  to  them,  as  he  pleased.  He  refused  to  disclose  his  re- 
ligious sentiments  or  those  of  his  party,  alleging  that  he  was  not 
bound  to  disclose  them  before  a  temporal  tribunal.  He  contended 
that  the  rehgious  Society  of  Friends  was  a  pure  democracy,  ac- 
knowledging no  head  but  Christ,  the  Gi'eat  Head  of  the  christian 
church,  and  that  they  did  not  consider  Elias  Hicks  as  their  leader. 
That,  believing  in  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  influence  of  the 
divine  hght  upon  the  soul,  they  held  no  inquisition  over  the  con- 
sciences of  their  fellow  men.  He  denied  that  his  party  had  se- 
ceded from  the  rule  and  govei'nment  of  the  church.  He  con- 
tended that  they  had  merely  revived  the  government,  and  orga- 
nized it  anew  upon  its  -original  principles,  which  had  become  ne- 
cessary, in  consequence  of  the  erroneous  and  irregular  proceed- 
ings of  some  members  of  the  opposite  party,  particularly  certain 
elders  in  Philadelphia. 

After  the  pleadings  were  completed,  the  depositions  of  witnesses 
were  taken  at  Camden,  opposite  to  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  be- 
fore Jeremiah  J.  Foster,  Esq.  an  Examiner  in  the  Court  of  Chan- 
cery, which,  together  with  the  pleadings  at  length,  and  some  of 
the  exhibits  in  the  cause,  have  been  published  in  tw^o  volumes. 

The  Chancellor  having  been,  while  at  the  bar,  of  counsel  in  the 
cause,  called  into  his  assistance,  agreeably  to  the  practice  of  the 
Court,  the  Chief  Justice  and  one  of  the  Associate  Justices  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  before  whom  the  cause  was  heard. 

This  volume  may  with  propriety  be  considered  a  continuation 
of  the  W'Ork  of  J.  J.  Foster,  Esq.  and  is  so  intended  to  be.  But  in- 
asmuch as  many  persons  may  wish  to  procure  this  volume,  with- 
out going  to  the  expence  of  obtaining  the  depositions,  the  Editor 


VI I 


has  thought  it  advisable  to  give  this  brief  account  of  the  pleadings 
and  previous  proceedings  for  the  benefit  of  the  reader. 

He  regrets  that  he  is  unable  to  publish  the  arguments  of  the  coun- 
sel on  the  other  side.  He  had  made  arrangements  to  procure 
the  speech  of  one  of  them,  but  those  who  had  at  that  time  the 
control  of  it,  declined  consummating  the  arrangement,  and  he 
could  not  therefore  procure  the  copy.  The  Editor  only  adverts 
to  these  circumstances,  in  order  to  account  for  their  arguments 
not  appearing  in  this  publication,  and  to  exempt  himself  from 
any  censure  for  not  inserting  them. 

Trenton,  August,  1S32, 


SOCIETY   OF   FRIENDS   VINDICATED. 


Court  of  Chancery,  of  JVew  Jersey, 
Trenton,  January  3,  1832. 

This  being  the  day  set  down  by  the  Court,  for  hearing  the  ar- 
gument, and  their  Honors,  Chief  Justice  Ewing,  and  Associate 
Justice  Drake,  of  the  Supreme  Court,  being  present,  the  Chancel- 
lor having  been  concerned  as  counsel  in  the  cause, 

George  Wood,  Esq.,  solicitor  for  the  plaintiff,  thus  opened  the 
cause : 

The  debt  secured  by  the  bond  and  mortgage  in  question,  in  this 
cause,  is  part  of  a  school  fund,  raised  for  the  education  of  the 
children  of  indigent  members  of  the  Preparative  Meeting  of  the 
society  of  Friends,  or  people  called  Quakers,  at  Ci'osswicks,  in  the 
county  of  Burlington.* 

The  trustees  and  the  treasurer  of  this  school  fund  are  appointed 
by  this  preparative  meeting.  The  whole  fund,  including  this  mort- 
gage debt,  which  is  a  part  of  the  fund,  is  a  mere  appendage  to  this 
preparative  meeting. 

Independently  of  the  pleadings  and  evidence  in  this  cause,  it  is 
well  known  that  there  is  an  unfortunate  controversy  in  this  reli- 

*  See  the  original  subscription  paper  in  the  Appendix. 
A 


gious  society.  A  controversy  which  has  spread  discord  through- 
out the  whole  church.  It  has  not  been  confined  in  its  effects  to 
mere  religious  matters,  but  its  baneful  influence  has  infected  all 
the  relations  of  private  life.  Brother  has  been  arrayed  against 
brother,  and  husband  against  wife.  The  bitterness  of  this  dissen- 
tion  has  been  rendered  doubly  severe,  from  the  reflection,  that  the 
members  of  this  church  have  heretofore  been  distinguished,  with- 
out seeking  distinction  of  any  kind,  for  their  pacific  disposition 
and  friendly  intercourse.  The  last  property  in  New  Jersey,  which 
any  one,  a  few  years  ago  would  have  expected  to  see  involved  in 
the  heat  of  litigation,  would  have  been  Quaker  meeting  houses, 
and  their  appendages. 

The  dispute  commenced  about  religious  doctrines.  This  led 
to  a  discussion  in  respect  to  discipline  and  government,  and  has 
eventuated  in  an  absolute  separation  of  the  parties ;  both  sides  are 
respectable  in  regard  to  numbers  and  character. 

The  religious  world,  from  a  very  early  period,  has  been  divided 
in  sentiment,  respecting  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  Those  op« 
posed  to  it,  have  appeared  at  different  times  and  in  diflferent  forms. 
Arjanism,  presented  the  boldest  front  of  opposition  to  this  doctrine, 
which  commenced  with  Arius,  a  presbyter  of  the  church  of  Alex- 
andria, in  the  fourth  century.  Shortly  before  this,  arose  the  Sa- 
bellian  controversy.  The  Socinian,  is  of  more  modern  date;  and 
lastly,  we  have  the  Unitarian.  They  have  appeared  with  diflfer- 
ent modifications  of  doctrines,  becoming  more  lax  as  they  recede 
in  point  of  time.  They  all  agree,  however,  in  one  point — in  de- 
grading the  great  Head  of  the  Christain  Church,  in  disrobing  Him 
of  his  divinity  and  equality  in  the  Godhead.  They  agree,  also,  in 
rejecting  the  atonement — they  also  reduce  the  scriptures  from  a 
work  of  inspiration,  which  is  infallible,  to  a  mere  history,  liable  to 
err,  and  subject  to  allowances  in  interpretation,  so  as  to  get  clear 
of  all  those  passages  in  which  the  divinity  of  the  Saviour  is  fully 
and  unequivocally  developed. 

Arianism  spread  at  one  time  extensively.  Modern  protestants 
are  generally  Trinitarians.  Unitarianism  has  lately  gained  ground 
in  New  England;  and  within  a  comparatively  short  period,  it  has 
invaded  the  peaceful  borders  of  Quakerism. 

There  are  at  Crosswicks,  two  associations,  each  claiming  to  be 
the  preparative  meeting  in  question.     The  one  is  attached  to  the 


\^Ar\y  meeting  of  Philadelphia,  which  assembles  on  the  third 
Monday  of  the  fourth  month,  or  April.  The  other,  to  the  yearly 
meeting  which  assembles  there  on  the  second  Monday  of  that 
month.  The  bill  of  interpleader  was  intended  to  bring  before  the 
courtj  the  two  persons,  Hendrickson  and  Shotwell,  each  claiming 
to  be  the  treasurer  of  this  school.  Hendrickson,  my  client,  being 
appointed  by  the  preparative  meeting  commonly  called  "  Orthodox," 
Shotwell,  by  the  preparative  meeting  commonly  called  "  Hicksite." 
I  use  these  terms,  by  which  the  two  parties  are  generally  known, 
merely  for  the  purpose  of  designation,  and  without  any  view  to 
disparagement. 

The  question  to  be  considered  and  decided,  is,  which  is  the  true 
preparative  meeting  to  which  this  property  belongs.  They  can- 
not both  be,  for  it  belongs  to  one. 

It  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  Joseph  Hendrickson,  though  the 
obligee  at  law,  holds  the  bond  and  mortgage  in  equity  as  such 
treasurer,  subject  to  the  trust.  Who  is  truly  the  treasurer  ?  Which 
is  the  true  preparative  meeting,  to  which  this  fund  is  attached? 
What  preparative  meeting  is  it,  whose  indigent  members  are  en- 
titled to  be  educated  out  of  this  fund  ? 

We  contend  that  the  preparative  meeting  called  "  Orthodox,"  is 
the  true  preparative  meeting  identified  with  the  preparative  meet- 
ing existing  at  Crosswicks,  at  the  time  this  school  fund  was  raised 
— that  the  other  is  not  the  true  preparative  meeting,  and  for  two 
reasons — first,  because  they  have  departed  from  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  this  religious  society;  and  secondly,  because  they 
have  departed  from  the  discipline,  rule,  and  government  of  this 
church,  and  have  set  up  for  themselves  a  new  and  distinct  go- 
vernment, separately  organized. 

Before  I  proceed  to  a  consideration  of  the  doctrines  of  this  so- 
ciety, allow  me  to  present  a  few  preliminaiy  remarks.  Wc  ac- 
cord freely  to  the  opposite  party,  the  position,  that  every  indi- 
vidual has  a  right  to  entertain,  and  openly  to  enjoy  his  own  re- 
ligious opinions;  provided,  in  the  practical  assertion  of  them,  he 
does  not  infringe  that  moral  rule,  as  sanctioned  and  enforced  by 
the  municipal  law.  By  the  act  of  1796,  Paterson's  New  Jersey 
laws,  211,  it  is  a  misdemeanor  to  deny  the  Being  or  Providence  of 
God — contumelious  reproaches  of  Christ,  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  the 
Scriptures,  are  also  punishable.     The  deoial  in  these  instances,  to 


be  punishable,  must  be  of  a  contumelious  character;  the  statute  doc- 
trine of  blasphemy  being  merely  declaratory  of  the  common  law. 
Within  the  wide  range  allowed  by  this  statute,  every  man  can 
freely  and  publicly  enjoy  his  own  opinions. 

But  this  liberty  is  broad  and  general,  not  restrictive  and  exclu- 
sive— Christianity  is  deeply  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  genuine  ra- 
tional liberty.  Wherever  it  goes,  it  carries  knowledge,  civiliza- 
tion and  liberty  in  its  train — it  strikes  the  shackles  from  the  foot  of 
the  slave.  But  the  liberty  for  which  I  contend,  is  liberty  under 
the  law,  not  the  privilege  of  holding  what  may  be  got  in  a  gene- 
ral scramble ;  and  the  law  which  protects  this  liberty,  sheds  its  be- 
nign influence,  not  only  on  individiioJs,  but  on  religious  societies. 

Christianity  is  a  social  system.  The  christian  individuated,  would 
be  a  phenomenon.  Through  the  whole  course  of  its  histoi-y  we 
find  it  existing  in  the  shape  of  religious  societies,  differing  from 
one  another ;  sometimes  in  essential  doctrines,  sometimes  in  forms 
of  government,  and  sometimes  in  both.  This  state  of  things,  is  the 
combined  result  of  two  principles — freedom  of  thought,  and  social 
feeling.  The  movements  springing  from  the  application  of  these 
apparently  antagonist  principles,  resemble,  in  some  measure,  the 
harmonious  operations  of  physical  nature.  These  various  reli- 
gious societies,  though  they  differ,  may  live  harmoniously  together, 
but  the  members  of  the  same  society,  must  agree  in  all  important 
particulars,  in  order  to  preserve  this  concord. 

"  Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  there 
am  I  in  the  midst  of  them,"  may  be  considered  as  something  more 
than  a  mere  consolatory  declaration.  It  invokes  an  injunction, 
and  exhibits  at  the  same  time,  a  prophetic  view  of  the  christian 
state. 

While  the  law  protects  individuals,  it  would  be  short-sighted 
indeed,  not  to  protect  religions  societies  in  their  social  capacity — 
in  the  enjoyment  of  their  rights,  and  in  woi'shipping  in  their  social 
meetings  without  disturbance  or  conflict,  according  to  the  estab- 
lished views  and  doctrines  of  their  founders.  Without  such  fos- 
tering care,  Christianity,  as  far  as  it  is  dependent  on  human  means, 
would  be  starved  out  of  the  world ;  and  this  protection  is  benefi- 
<'ial  to  morality  as  well  as  religion. 

In  what  are  religious  societies  to  be  protected?  In  the  mainten- 
ance of  their  doctrines — of  their  peculiar  views  of  the  Deity,  and 


of  the  worship  that  belongs  to  Him,  and  in  the  organization  of  their 
institutions;  and  as  incidental  to  these,  they  are  entitled  to  the 
preservation  of  the  property  bestowed  upon  them,  either  directly, 
or  through  the  intervention  of  trustees,  for  these  great  purposes. 
How  are  they  to  be  protected  in  these  important  particulars  1  By 
guaranteeing  to  them  the  power  of  purgation,  of  lopping  off  dead 
and  useless  branches,  of  clearing  out  those  who  depart  essentially 
from  the  fundamental  doctrines  and  discipline  of  the  society. — 
There  is  no  other  mode  of  protecting  a  religious  association.  To 
preserve  the  identity  of  an  institution,  you  must  keep  in  view  the 
purpose  for  which  it  was  formed,  and  its  essential  modes  of  ac- 
tion, and  you  must  preserve  them.  If  a  set  of  individuals  within 
its  bosom,  may  divert  it  to  other  purposes,  its  identity  is  gone — 
it  is  no  longer  protected.  Property  bestowed  in  trust  for  these 
purposes,  is  no  longer  protected  in  the  trust. 

The  power  of  bestowing  property  for  such  religious  purposes, 
or  in  other  words,  of  creating  such  trust,  is  one  of  the  most  inter- 
esting rights  which  man  can  exercise  and  enjoy  in  society.  Man, 
says  Edmund  Burke,  is  by  nature,  a  religious  animal.  His  in- 
stinct as  well  as  his  reason,  leads  him  to  the  perception  of  Deity, 
and  he  becomes  awfully  impressed  with  this  idea,  when  bowed 
down  by  the  hand  of  affliction,  or  when  contemplating  the  grand 
and  sublime  operations  of  nature.  When  so  impressed,  from  what- 
ever cause,  he  feels  impelled  to  contribute  to  the  propagation  of 
that  religious  devotion,  which  lifts  up  his  nature,  and  prepares  him 
for  higher  and  nobler  destinies.  The  wise  and  the  good  feel  and 
highly  prize  this  as  a  privilege ;  and  every  wise  and  good  govern- 
ment will  be  disposed  to  protect  the  enjoyment  of  it  when  not  car- 
ried to  superstitious  lengths ;  deprive  them  of  this  protection,  and 
you  so  far  deprive  them  of  religious  freedom.  The  religious  so- 
ciety is  not  protected.  The  individual  entertaining  his  peculiar 
religious  views  as  a  member  of  that  society,  is  not  protected  in 
bestowing  his  property  upon  it ;  an  Episcopalian,  a  Presbyterian, 
a  Quaker,  may  have  his  property  which  he  had  bestowed  in  trust 
for  these  religious  purposes,  diverted  to  other  purposes;  trustees 
in  such  cases,  are  encouraged  to  prove  faithless  to  their  trust. 

The  protection  of  religious  freedom,  in  the  individual  and  social 
capacity,  must  be  so  regulated  that  they  may  harmonize  ;  let  the 
individual,  having  been  a  member  of  a  religious  society,  and  hav- 


ing  changed  his  opinions,  Withdraw  and  enjoy  his  own  opinions 
newly  formed ;  but  if  you  allow  him  to  remain  a  member,  he  is 
of  course  marring  the  religious  doctrines  of  the  society,  to  which 
he  has  become  alien  in  feeling  and  in  sentiment ;  let  him,  when  he 
withdraws,  carry  his  own  property  with  him ;  but  if  he  carries 
the  property  of  the  society  along  with  him,  he  is  encroaching  upon 
their  rights. 

There  is  another  preliminary  view  which  I  wish  to  present  to 
the  consideration  of  the  court.  As  before  remarked,  Christianity 
has  always  been  fostered  and  protected  through  rehgious  societies. 
Their  property  has  been  generally  bestowed  upon  them  by  way 
of  donation  by  individuals,  entertaining  the  same  religious  views. 
They  have  been  protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  property,  as 
religious  societies,  under  the  law  of  charitable  uses,  introduced  into 
the  civil  law  by  Constantine,  when  Christianity  became  the  reli- 
gion of  the  Roman  empire. 

An  opinion  has  sometimes  been  entertained,  that  this  doctrine 
of  charitable  uses,  was  introduced  into  England  by  the  statute  of 
forty-third  Elizabeth,  but  this  notion  is  manifestly  erroneous.  The 
protection  of  property,  given  for  charitable  pm^poses,  j)ice  causa, 
as  they  are  sometimes  termed,  was  enforced  in  all  countries,  whose 
codes  sought  their  origin  in  the  civil  law ;  and  it  is  impossible  to 
suppose,  that  these  doctrines  should  not,  at  an  early  period,  have 
been  introduced  into  England,  where  religious  subjects  were  placed 
under  the  auspices  of  the  canon  law,  and  enforced  in  the  eccle- 
siastical, and  occasionally  in  the  chancery  courts,  then  in  the 
hands  of  churchmen.  A  portion  of  the  eft'ects  of  the  deceased 
were  distributed  to  these,  j)i(^  causcE,  by  the  ecclesiastical  courts, 
before  the  next  of  kin  received  any  thing.  In  sixth  Reeve's  English 
law,  some  of  these  pice  causcB  are  enumerated,  p.  80,  81.  The 
statute  of  superstitious  uses,  twenty-third  Henry  VIJI.  is  a 
sort  of  mortmain  act,  and  distinguishes  between  superstitious, 
and  charitable  uses,  and  prohibits  grants  of  land  to  the  former. 
This  whole  provision  is  grounded  on  the  fact,  that  grants  of  land 
to  charitable  uses,  were  customary  and  legitimate.  And  if  so, 
such  grants  must  have  been  enforced  somewhere,  in  some  courts, 
and  no  doubt  in  the  court  of  chancery,  which  took  cognizance  of 
trusts  of  all  kinds.    The  statute  of  charitable  uses,  is  recited  in  first 

*  4  Rccvo's  English  Law,  437. 


Burns'  English  law,  307,  which  enumerates  different  charitable  uses, 
appoints  a  special  commission  to  superintend  them,  with  an  appeal 
to  the  chancellor.  The  act  manifestly  refers  to  the  previous  exist- 
ence of  charitable  uses ;  the  remedy  in  chancery,  in  cases  of  breach 
of  the  charitable  trust,  must  also  have  existed  previously.  This  sub- 
ject is  ably  investigated  by  Jones,  late  chancellor  of  New  York,* 
where  he  is  brought  to  the  same  conclusion,  and  although  his  deci- 
sion was  reversed  in  the  court  of  errors  upon  other  grounds,  his  opi- 
nion upon  this  matter,  remains  untouched.  Speaking  of  the  prin- 
ciple, that  limitations  to  charitable  uses  by  way  of  devise,  though 
void  at  law,  would  be  enforced  in  equity,  he  observes,  p.  479,  that 
"  the  same  principle  must  have  pervaded  and  governed  every 
case  of  charitable  use,  anterior  to  the  statute  of  Elizabeth,  where 
the  use  was  held  to  be  valid  in  equity,  when  the  devise  or  deed 
was  void  at  law,  from  the  failure  or  incapacity  of  the  donee  to 
take,  or  the  want  of  sufficient  certainty  in  the  description  of  the 
persons  or  designation  of  the  objects  or  purposes  of  the  charity; 
and  indeed  it  is  manifest  from  other  provisions  of  the  statute  it- 
self, that  the  charitable  uses  which  the  commissioners  were  autho- 
rised to  establish,  were  understood  to  be  subsisting  uses  at  the 
time ;  for  the  titles  of  purchasers  of  the  estates  affected  by  them 
who  had  purchased  or  obtained  the  same  for  a  valuable  consider- 
ation, and  without  notice  of  the  trust,  or  charge,  were  not  to  be 
fmpeached  by  the  decrees  or  orders  of  the  commissioners;  but 
the  commissioners  were  nevertheless  to  direct  recompense  to  be 
made  by  those,  who  being  constituted  trustees,  or  having  notice 
of  the  charitable  use,  had  violated  the  trust  or  defrauded  the  use, 
by  the  sale  or  other  disposition  of  the  estate.  Provisions  wholly  in- 
consistent with  the  supposition  of  a  right  in  the  heir  at  law,  but 
well  adapted  at  the  same  time,  to  the  protection  of  bona  fide  pur- 
chasers, and  to  the  relief  of  cestui  que  trusts,  whose  interests  were 
betrayed  by  faithless  trustees,  or  usurped  by  disappointed  heirs." 
And  in  page  481  he  remarks,  "  it  is  admitted  that  there  did  ex- 
ist a  general  jurisdiction  over  charities  in  England,  anterior  to 
the  statute  of  Elizabeth,  which  was  exercised  by  the  chancellor; 
but  that  jurisdiction,  it  is  said,  was  a  branch  of  the  prerogative 
of  the  crown,  and  did  not  belong  to  the  ordinary  powers  of  the 
court  of  chancery ;  and  elementary  writers  of  acknowledged  au- 

*  M^Carter  v.  Orphan  Asylum,  9  Conven. 


thority,  are  cited  to  show  that  the  superintendence  of  charities,  in 
common  with  the  charge  of  infants  and  lunatics,  belongs  to  the 
king,  as pai-e7is patricB,  and  that  the  jurisdiction  of  chancery  in  such 
cases,  does  not  appertain  to  it  as  a  court  of  equity,  but  as  admin- 
istering the  prerogatives  and  duties  of  the  crown.  If  it  were  so, 
the  court  of  chancery  in  tliis  state  might  perhaps  claim  the  juris- 
diction, for  the  very  reason,  that  in  England  it  did  belong  to  the 
crown,  as  parens  patrice.  Charities  are  classed  with  infants,  as 
belonging  to  the  same  jurisdiction,  and  as  the  entire  cognizance  of 
the  cases  of  infants,  though  nominally  in  the  crown,  has  long  been 
delegated  to  the  chancellor,  by  whom  it  is  exercised;  and  the 
chancellor,  as  administering  the  same  prerogative  of  the  crown, 
has  also  the  general  superintendence  of  all  the  charities  in  the  king- 
dom, it  would  seem  to  follow,  that  as  the  general  jurisdiction  of 
the  cases  of  infants  in  this  state,  is  vested  exclusively  in  this  court ; 
charities,  if  they  belong  to  the  same  jurisdiction,  should  also  be  of 
equitable  cognizance,  and  if  so,  all  the  remedy  of  the  English  court 
of  chancery,  by  its  ordinary  powers,  or  as  administering  the  pre- 
I'ogative  and  duties  of  the  crown,  could  apply,  may  be  adminis- 
tered by  this  court." 

It  is  probable  that  the  English  court  of  chancery,  relying  upon 
some  broad  expressions  in  the  statute  of  Elizabeth,  carried  the 
law  of  charities  farther  than  it  was  before.  Thus  the  court  of 
chancery,  since  that  statute,  will  enforce  a  charity  where  there  is 
no  legal  estate,  and  where  the  trusts  are  not  designated,  and  will 
devise  a  scheme  for  the  distribution  of  the  charity;  but  in  this 
country,  without  the  aid  of  statuary  provisions,  our  courts  of  chan- 
cery will  carry  into  effect  charities  bequeathed  to  associations  of 
individuals  not  incorporated,  where  there  are  trustees  to  take  the  le- 
gal estate,  and  the  trust  is  so  designated  as  that  it  may  be  enforced 
without  the  contrivance  of  a  new  scheme.  Of  this  opinion  is 
chancellor  Kent.*  In  Inglis  v.  the  Trustees  of  the  Sailor's  Snug 
Harbor,f  it  was  decided  that  a  devise  for  the  purpose  of  main- 
taining and  supporting  aged,  decrepid,  and  worn  out  sailors,  is  a 
trust  which  equity  will  enforce,  and  they  go  so  far  as  to  say,  that 

*  2  Kent's  Com.  Lcc.  33. 

t  3  Peters'  U.  S.  Rep.  p.  119,  and  see  llie  opinion  of  Justice  Story  in  the  Ap- 
pendix  to  do.,  deliverctl  in  a  former  case.  Also,  Bcatty  v.  Kurtz,  2  Peters'  U.  S. 
Rep.  p.  566. 


if  the  devise  of  tiie  legal  estate  should  be  inoperative,  the  trust 
would  fasten  upon  the  land  in  the  hands  of  the  heir.  In  the  At- 
torney General  vs.  Pearson,  third  Merivale,  409,  Lord  Eldon  says, 
"that  a  devise  (notwithstanding  the  statute  of  charitable  uses,)  for 
the  purpose  clearly  expressed,  of  maintaining  a  society  of  protes- 
tant  dissenters,  would  be  enforced."  A  similar  opinion  was  given 
in  this  court,  by  chancellor  Williamson,  in  the  case  of  the  execu- 
tors of  Ackerman  against  the  legatees.  The  statute  of  New  Jer- 
sey incorporating  trustees  to  hold  property  in  trust  for  reUgious 
societies,  recognizes  the  doctrine,  that  these  religious  societies  are 
legitimate  cestui  que  trusts  in  equity,  for  they  are  not  incorpora- 
ted by  it;  the  trustees  only  are  incorporated,  for  the  better  trans- 
mission of  the  legal  estate,  of  which  privilege  a  religious  society 
may  avail  themselves  if  they  think  proper ;  but  no  law  was  neces- 
sary to  incorporate  the  society,  to  enjoy  the  equitable  beneficial 
interests  to  which  they  are  entitled. 

We  admit,  therefore,  the  equity  of  the  complainants'  claim,  if 
they  are  really  and  truly  the  preparative  meeting  in  Crosswicks, 
for  whose  use  this  school  fund  was  created.  We  do  not  place 
ourselves  behind  the  ramparts  of  the  common  law,  and  say  that 
Hendrickson  is  entitled  to  recover  as  the  legal  obligee  of  this  fund. 
We  admit  the  trust,  and  claim  only,  on  the  ground  that  he,  and 
not  Decow,  is  the  true  and  legitimate  trustee. 

It  may  be  asked,  w^hy  this  elibrt  to  show^  that  the  claimant  in 
this  bill  of  intei-pleader,  has  a  right  to  sue  in  the  character  of  trus- 
tee, and  to  recover  if  his  claim  is  supported  ?  I  ans^ver,  that  I 
feel  anxious  to  place  this  case  upon  its  true  merits,  and  to  leave 
no  other  ground  upon  either  side,  if  possible,  upon  which  a  techni- 
cal decision  could  be  made,  aside  of  the  merits  of  the  case.  My 
clients,  confident  in  the  lawfulness  and  righteousness  of  their  cause, 
wish  to  have  a  decision  upon  the  main  question,  which  of  these 
parties  forming  these  separate  preparative  meetings,  is  the  true 
society  of  Friends,  and  as  such,  entitled  to  the  property. 

There  is  another  preliminary  topic,  upon  which  I  will  trouble 
the  court  with  a  few  additional  remarks.  Though  a  religious  so- 
ciety has  an  equitable  beneficial  interest  in  property  held  in  trust  for 
them,  yet  they  take  it,  not  in  their  individual,  but  in  their  social  ca- 
pacity ;  they  take  this  benefit  as  members,  and  only  so  long  as  they 
have  the  qualification  of  members.      Though  not  a  corporation, 

B 


10 

they  partake,  as  to  this  purpose,  in  equity,  in  some  measure,  of  the 
corporate  character.  This  doctrine  may  be  appHed  to  all  charita- 
ble trusts,  where  bodies  of  men,  and  not  individuals,  are  the  per- 
sons for  whose  use  it  is  held  by  the  beneficiaries.  Thus  in  the 
case  of  the  Sailor's  Snug  Harbor,  in  order  to  enjoy  the  bounty, 
the  persons  must  be  aged  or  decrepit  seamen,  and  attached  to  the 
institution  formed  under  that  will  for  the  dispensation  of  the  chari- 
ty. The  moment  they  cease  to  answer  that  character,  they  cease 
to  be  the  objects  of  that  bounty.  Suppose  a  large  majority  of  them 
should  be  decrepit  seamen,  and  false  to  the  generous  character 
of  their  profession,  they  should  unanimously  pass  a  resolve  that 
on  their  recovery,  they  would  appropriate  the  property  which  the 
benevolent  founder  had  devoted  to  the  solace  of  those,  whose  best 
days  had  been  spent  in  buffetting  the  waves,  and  that  they  would 
apply  these  funds  to  other  purposes ;  would  a  court  of  equity  re- 
cognise their  right  to  do  so,  under  the  pretence,  that  they  for  the 
time  being,  were  the  objects  of  that  bounty?  On  such  a  point  no 
court  could  hesitate. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  consider  the  doctrines  of  the  society  of 
Friends,  and  to  show^that  those  religious  opinions  set  forth  by 
Hendrickson  in  his  answer,  and  now  entertained  by  those  to  whom 
he  is  attached,  are  the  ancient,  established,  and  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  this  religious  sect.  They  are  set  out  in  his  answer,  and 
I  cannot  state  them  in  better  language. 

"  In  the  first  place,  although  the  society  of  Friends  have  seldom 
made  use  of  the  word  trinity,  yet  they  believe  in  the  existence  of 
the  Father,  the  Son,  or  Word,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  That  the 
Son  was  God,  and  became  flesh — that  there  is  one  God  and  Fa- 
ther, of  whom  are  all  things — that  there  is  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
by  whom  all  things  were  made,  who  was  glorified  with  the  Father 
before  the  world  began,  who  is  God  over  all,  blessed  for  ever — 
that  there  is  one  Holy  Spirit,  the  promise  of  the  Father  and  the 
Son;  the  leader,  and  sanctifier  and  comforter  of  his  people,  and 
that  these  three  are  one,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Spirit — 
that  the  principal  difference  between  the  people  called  Quakers, 
and  other  protestant  trinitarian  sects,  in  regard  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  trinity,  is,  that  the  latter  attach  the  idea  of  individual  per- 
sonage to  the  three,  as  what  they  consider  a  fair  logical  inference 
from  the  doctrines  expressly  laid  down  in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 


11 

The  people  called  Quakers,  on  the  other  hand,  considering  it  a 
mystery  beyond  finite,  human  conception,  take  up  the  doctrine  as 
expressly  laid  down  in  the  Scripture,  and  have  not  considered 
themselves  as  warranted  in  making  deductions,  however  specious. 

"  In  the  second  place,  the  people  called  Quakers  have  always 
believed  in  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement — that  the  divine  and  hu- 
man nature  of  Jesus  Christ  the  Saviour  were  united ;  that  thus  uni- 
ted, he  suffered,  and  that  through  his  suffermgs,  death  and  resur- 
rection, he  atoned  for  the  sins  of  men.  That  the  Son  of  God,  in 
the  fulness  of  time,  took  flesh,  became  perfect  man,  according  to 
the  flesh,  descended  and  came  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  and  David 
— that  being  with  God  from  all  eternity,  being  himself  God,  and 
also  in  time  partaking  of  the  nature  of  man,  through  him  is  the 
goodness  and  love  of  God  conveyed  to  mankind,  and  that  by  him 
again  man  receiveth  and  partaketh  of  these  mercies — that  Christ 
took  upon  him  the  seed  of  Abraham,  and  his  holy  body  and  blood 
was  an  offering  and  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world. 

'•  In  the  third  place,  the  people  called  Quakers  believe  that  the 
Scriptures  are  given  by  inspiration,  and  when  rightly  interpreted 
are  unerring  guides ;  and  to  use  the  language  adopted  by  them, 
they  are  able  to  make  wise  unto  salvation,  through  faith  which  is 
in  Jesus  Christ.  They  believe  that  the  spirit  still  operates  upon 
the  souls  of  men,  and  when  it  does  really  and  truly  so  operate,  it 
furnishes  the  primary  rule  of  faith.  That  the  Scriptures  proceed- 
ing from  it,  must  be  secondary  in  reference  to  this  primary  source, 
whence  they  proceed ;  but  inasmuch  as  the  dictates  of  the  spirit 
are  always  true  and  uniform,  all  ideas  and  views  which  any  per- 
son may  entertain  repugnant  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures, 
which  are  unerring,  must  proceed  from  false  lights.  That  such 
are  the  doctrines  entertained  and  adopted  by  the  ancient  society 
of  Friends,  and  that  the  same  doctrines  are  still  entertained  by  the 
"Orthodox"  party  aforesaid,  to  which  party  this  defendant  belongs. 
That  these  doctrines  are  with  the  said  religious  society  fundamen- 
tal, and  any  individual,  entertaining  sentiments  and  opinions  con- 
trary to  all  or  any  of  the  above  mentioned  doctrines,  is  held  not 
to  be  in  the  same  faith  with  the  society  of  Friends,  or  people  called 
Quakers,  and  is  treated  accordingly." 

I  am  aware,  from  the  course  heretofore  pursued  on  the  other 
side,  that  an  objection  will  be  taken  to  a   consideration  and  deci- 


12 

sion  upon  these  doctrines  by  the  court.  It  will  be  said  that  this  is  a 
matter  of  conscience,  which  cannot  and  ought  not  to  be  probed — 
that  the  subject  eludes  the  research  of  a  temporal  tribunal,  and  is 
too  difficult  to  be  investigated.  I  concede,  most  unequivocally  to 
the  opposite  party,  the  right  of  conscience  and  religious  liberty  to 
its  full  extent.  But  when  the  religious  doctrines  of  any  man,  or  of 
any  set  of  men,  should  be  ascertained  to  settle  a  question  of  pro- 
perty, to  determine  a  trust,  and  who  are  the  proper  objects  of  that 
trust,  that  matter  may  be  inquired  into  as  well  as  any  other ;  and 
there  is  no  more  difficulty  attending  the  investigation  than  in  nu- 
merous other  matters  which  are  examined  and  discussed  in  our 
courts  of  justice.  Warren  Hastings  was  governor  general  of  In- 
dia. In  that  capacity,  he  declared  war,  negotiated  treaties,  ex- 
acted contributions  from  tributary  princes.  He  was  impeached 
before  the  House  of  Lords,  for  gross  malversation  in  office,  in  the 
government  of  an  empire,  through  a  series  of  years ;  an  empire 
much  greater  than  the  kingdom  of  Great  Britain,  not  only  his  acts, 
but  through  them  his  purposes,  his  motives,  and  I  may  say,  his  jyo- 
litical  doctrines,  were  inquired  into.  Pamphlets,  treaties,  public 
documents  of  every  kind  were  examined — months  were  devoted 
to  the  inquiry.  Now  this  court  has  the  same  facilities  for  investi- 
gation, and  proceeds  very  much  on  the  same  principles,  on  which 
a  parhamentary  impeachment  is  conducted. 

But  let  me  refer  you  to  other  cases  :  for  instance,  to  the  trials  of 
Hardy  and  Tooke  for  high  treason.  They  were  members  of  a  so- 
ciety formed  in  England,  as  was  alleged  on  the  part  of  the  gov- 
ernment, for  treasonable  purposes.  On  the  other  side,  it  was  said, 
their  object  was  to  obtain  by  legitimate  means,  a  salutary  parlia- 
mentary reform.  On  thisinquiry,  the  constitutions  of  this  and  oth- 
er societies,  pamphlets  and  proclamations,  issued  by  their  mem- 
bers, and  sometimes  directly  under  their  authority,  were  given  in 
evidence.  Day  after  day,  volume  after  volume  was  poured  in  up- 
on the  jury — and  what  did  the  court  do?  Did  they  fold  up  their 
arms,  and  say,  why  this  is  too  difficult  a  matter  for  us,  and  espe- 
cially for  the  jury,  who  are  to  be  kept  together  without  meat  or 
drink,  to  inquire  into,  and  we  must  shrink  from  the  task  ?  No. 
They  met  the  difficulties  of  the  case  boldly  and  fnirly,  and  even 
relaxed  from  the  strictness  witli  which  a  jury  is  usually  guarded, 
in  order  to  meet  the  exigency  of  thernse.     A  similar  course  wns 


13 

adopted  on  the  trial  of  Fries  for  higii  treason,  in  this  country. 
There  is  a  boldness  and  a  depth  of  investigation,  peculiar  to  the  ad- 
ministration of  English  and  of  American  law,  which  stops  at  no 
obstruction,  however  great,  which  is  repressed  by  no  difficulty, 
however  appalling. 

Before  I  proceed  to  the  proof  of  these  doctrines,  permit  me  to 
make  a  few  explanatory  remarks  upon  them.  The  society  of 
Friends  do  not  use  the  word  trinity — nor  do  they  apply  the  term 
person  to  the  Godhead ;  because,  as  they  say,  they  do  not  find  these 
words  in  the  Scriptures.  They  are  cautious  in  not  using  any  scho- 
lastic phrases  to  convey  ideas,  the  result  of  metaphysical  reason- 
ing upon  subjects  beyond  their  comprehension.  And  it  is  some- 
what remarkable,  that  while  this  society  has  been  charged  with 
attaching  too  much  influence  to  the  operation  of  the  divine  light 
upon  the  soul,  they  have,  in  conveying  their  religious  ideas  upon 
doctrinal  points,  paid  a  greater  deference  to  Scriptural  language 
than  any  other  sect.  They  have  been  cautious  not  to  be  wise  be- 
yond what  was  written.  In  their  catechism,  the  answers  are  con- 
veyed in  Scriptural  language,  without  addition — taking  care  to  se- 
lect such  passages  as  convey  the  idea  clearly  and  beyond  doubt. 
And  to  shew  what  importance  they  attach  to  this  Scriptural  lan- 
guage, and  how  they  interpret  it,  they  adopt  impHcitly  the  text 
which  says,  "  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is 
profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction 
in  righteousness ;  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly 
furnished  unto  all  good  works  "*  Thus  adopting  this  text,  they 
shew  they  do  not  undervalue  the  Scriptures,  or  consider  them  lia- 
ble to  the  fallibility  of  mere  human  productions.  They  believe  in 
the  unity  of  the  Divine  Nature,  and  also  that  there  are  three  in  the 
Godhead,  but  to  convey  their  idea  they  select  those  passages  of 
Scripture  in  which  the  doctrine  is  clearly  put  forth,  without  draw- 
ing any  inferences  of  their  own.  Whether  the  three  are  so  distin- 
guished as  to  convey  the  idea  of  individual  personage,  in  the  sense 
in  which  man  understands  it,  and  can  only  understand  it  as  that 
idea  comes  to  him,  from  observing  those  rational  intelligences  that 
are  brought  under  his  cognizance,  is  a  question  upon  which  they 
do  not  undertake  to  decide. 

''Barclay's  Catechism,  page  5. 


14 

In  respect  to  the  atonement,  they  beHeve  in  the  great  propitia 
tory  sacrifice,  and  in  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human  nature  oi 
Jesus  Christ.  Tliey  deem  tliat  propitiatory  sacrifice  necessary 
to  salvation,  as  the  only  means  provided  for  that  purpose.  But 
they  do  not,  as  some  theologians  have  done,  decide  upon  its  indis- 
pensable necessity,  so  as  to  exclude  the  power  of  the  Supreme 
Being  to  have  provided  another  mode,  if,  in  his  infinite  wisdom, 
he  had  thought  proper  so  to  do.  They  think  it  sufficient  for  them 
to  say,  that  this  is  revealed  as  the  only  mode  actually  provided. 
They  adopt  implicitly,  as  before  shown,  the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. They  believe  the  Scriptures  may  be,  and  often  are,  misin- 
terpreted, when  not  read  in  a  right  frame  of  mind,  and  under  the 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit — but  they  do  not  hold  that  under  this 
influence  they  are  exalted  above  the  Scriptures,  and  become  wiser 
than  what  is  there  revealed.  Their  opinions  upon  the  subject  of 
the  light  within,  will  be  found  correctly  stated  in  the  second  vol- 
ume of  Penn's  works,  620,  and  he  there  shews  the  Scriptural  source 
from  whence  they  derive  it. 

At  the  time  when  this  society  arose,  the  religious  world,  with 
very  few  exceptions,  was  trinitarian,  and  upon  this  subject,  and 
upon  the  co-relative  truths,  the  atonement,  and  the  authenticity 
and  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  they  differed  from  no  other  trin- 
itarian sect,  in  any  essential  matter.  Their  principal  distinctive 
features  resulted  from  their  peculiar  opinions  in  regard  to  dress 
and  manners,  to  oaths,  to  wars,  and  to  a  hireling  ministry,  and  for 
these  opinions  they  suffered  a  good  deal  of  persecution  in  those 
days,  when  the  liberal  doctrines  of  religious  toleration  were  not 
properly  understood  or  practised  upon.  But  we  do  not  find  them 
persecuted  or  punished  for  undervaluing  the  Scriptures,  for  re- 
jecting the  atonement,  or  for  their  opinions  upon  the  Godhead,  with 
but  a  solitary  exception,  which  I  siiall  by  and  by  consider. 

In  this  inquiry,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind,  that  we  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  abstract  truth  or  accuracy  of  these  doctrines. 
Such  an  inquiry  belongs  properly  to  no  earthly  tribunal.  The  on- 
ly inquiry  is,  whether  they  are,  or  are  not  the  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  this  ancient  society  of  Friends,  and  with  a  view  to  settle 
a  question  of  trust. 

I  think  I  may  venture  to  say,  that  these  three  doctrines  in  ques- 
tion, are  proved  to  be  held  by  that  society  as  clearly  and  abun- 


15 

dantly,  as  it  would  be  possible  for  any  sect  to  prove  what  its  reli- 
gious doctrines  are.  We  are  told  on  the  other  side,  that  these 
cannot  be  their  doctrines  of  the  trinity,  as  a  society,  though  individ- 
ual members  may  hold  to  them,  because  the  society  has  no  creed. 
Passages  have  been  referred  to  in  their  writings,  in  which  they  ob- 
ject to  a  creed — and  this  matter  of  a  creed,  in  the  course  of  the 
examination,  has  been  made  the  subject  of  much  comment,  and  of 
some  sarcasm.  But  what  is  meant  by  a  creed  ?  The  modern 
expositions  of  religious  doctrine,  are  usually  called  confessions  of 
faith.  The  term  creed,  is  more  generally  applied  to  those  mani- 
festoes of  doctrine  which  were  put  forth  in  the  earlier  stages  of 
Christianity,  by  conventions  or  general  councils,  and  which  were 
imposed  upon  the  community  to  be  believed  under  severe  penal- 
ties, always  temporal,  and  sometimes  eternal.  It  will  be  found 
that  in  this  sense,  and  as  opposed  to  religious  toleration,  this  soci- 
ety has  condemned  creeds.  And  surely  it  will  not  be  pretended 
that  it  is  necessary  for  a  society  to  have  such  a  creed  before  it  can 
be  said  to  entertain  any  fundamental  religious  doctrines.  But  we 
will  not  dispute  about  words,  provided  the  substance  be  preserved. 
All  I  mean  to  say,  is  that  the  doctrines  in  question  are  held  by 
tliis  society  as  fundamental,  and  I  mean  to  prove  it. 

They  are  estabhshed,  in  the  first  place,  by  pubhc  and  authorita- 
tive acts  and  declarations,  adopted  by  this  society,  and  about 
which  there  can  be  no  dispute.  The  discipline  of  the  yearly 
meeting  of  Philadelphia,  is  the  first  piece  of  evidence  to  which  I 
will  call  your  attention — a  work  acknowledged  on  all  hands,  as  an 
authentic  source,  whose  provisions  are  obligatory  upon  the  mem- 
bers, as  a  rule  of  conduct.  Haliday  Jackson,  their  witness,  admits 
this.  In  page  twenty-three,  of  this  book  you  find  the  following  re- 
gulation : — 

"  If  any  in  membership  with  us  shall  blaspheme,  or  speak  pro- 
fanely of  Almighty  God,  Christ  Jesus,  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  or  she 
ou^^ht  early  to  be  tenderly  treated  with  for  their  instruction,  and 
the  convincement  of  their  understanding,  that  they  may  experience 
repentance  and  forgiveness ;  but  should  any,  notwithstanding  this 
brotherly  labor,  persist  in  their  error,  or  deny  the  divinity  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  the  immediate  revelation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  or  the  authenticity  of  the  Scriptures  ;  as  it  is  manifest 
they  are  not  one  in  faith  with  us,  the  monthly  meeting  where  the 


16 

party  belongs,  having  extended  due  care  for  the  help  and  benefit  of 
the  individual  without  effect,  ought  to  declare  the  same,  and  issue 
their  testimony  accordingly." 

In  Barclay's  Catechism,  already  adverted  to,  and  which  is  known 
to  be  a  standard  work,  adopted  by  the  society,  these  doctrines  are 
explicitly  set  forth.*  When  you  find  these  doctrines  imperatively 
enjoined  in  their  discipline,  under  severe  sanctions,  and  put  forth  in 
their  catechism  for  the  instruction  of  their  youth,  as  the  principles 
in  which  they  are  to  be  trained  up,  how  can  it  be  pretended  that 
these  are  not  held  by  the  society  as  their  settled  religious  opin- 
ions? A  catechism,  above  all  things,  would  be  adopted  by  a  re- 
ligious society,  with  the  utmost  circumspection,  and  care  would  be 
taken  that  no  doctrines  should  be  inculcated  which  were  not  held 
sacred  by  the  society.  Such  care  has  been  taken  in  this  instance. 
That  book  has  been  penned  with  the  greatest  caution.  Scrij)tural 
language  has  been  used,  and  the  most  striking  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, such  as  are  mainly  relied  upon  by  all  sects  holding  these  doc- 
trines, have  been  culled  to  convey  their  ideas.  Would  this  have 
been  done  if  that  work  had  been  intended  to  be  unitarian  1  Would 
they  not,  on  the  other  hand,  like  all  unitarians,  have  endea\  ored 
to  explain  away  these  passages  I 

George  Fox  is  admitted  to  be  the  founder  of  this  society — though 
he  is  not  called  the  head,  inasmuch  as  they  acknowledge  no  head 
but  the  Great  Head  of  the  Christian  Church.  They  are  adherents 
to  his  doctrines.  This  is  matter  of  history,  and  has,  though  a  work 
of  supererogation,  been  proved  in  the  cause.  See  his  letter  to  the 
gvoernor  of  Barbadoes : — 

"  For  the  Governor  of  Barbadoes,  with  his  council  and  assem- 
bly, and  all  others  in  power,  both  civil  and  military,  in  this 
island ;  from  the  people  called  Quakers. 

"  Whereas,  many  scandalous  lies  and  slanders  have  been  cast 
upon  us  to  render  us  odious;  as  that  "we  deny  God,  Christ  Jesus, 
and  the  Scriptures  of  truth,"  &c.  This  is  to  inform  you,  that  all 
our  books  and  declarations,  which  for  these  many  years  have 
been  published  to  the  world,  clearly  testify  the  contrary.  Yet,  for 
your  satisfaction  we  now  plainly  and  sincerely  declare,  that  we 

*  See  Barclay'si  Catccliism,  pages  2,  5,  8, 10,  11,  12,  34- 


ERRATA. 

Page  16,  after  the  last  line  of  text,  read — 
"  own  and  believe  in  the  only  wise,  onnnipotent,  and  everlasting" 
&c. 


17 

God,  the  creator  of  all  things  in  heaven  and  earth,  and  the  preserv- 
er of  all  that  he  hath  made  :  who  is  God  over  all,  blessed  for  ever; 
to  whom  be  all  honor,  glory,  dominion,  praise  and  thanksgiving, 
both  now  and  for  evermore  !  And  we  own  and  believe  in  Jesus 
Christ,  his  beloved  and  only  begotten  Son,  in  whom  he  is  well 
pleased ;  who  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary ;  in  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood, 
even  the  forgiveness  of  sins ;  who  is  the  express  image  of  the  in- 
visible God,  the  first-born  of  every  creature,  by  whom  were  all 
things  created  that  are  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible ; 
whether  they  be  thrones,  dominions,  principalities,  or  powers;  all 
things  were  created  by  him.  And  we  own  and  believe  that  he 
was  made  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  who  knew  no  sin,  neither  was  guile 
found  in  his  mouth ;  that  he  was  crucified  for  us  in  the  flesh,  with- 
out the  gates  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  that  he  was  buried,  and  rose  a- 
gain  on  the  third  day  by  the  power  of  his  Father,  for  our  justifica- 
tion ;  and  that  he  ascended  up  into  heaven,  and  now  sitteth  at  the 
right  hand  of  God.  This  Jesus,  who  was  the  foundation  of  the  ho- 
ly prophets  and  apostles,  is  our  foundation ;  and  we  believe  there 
is  no  other  foundation  to  be  laid  but  that  which  is  laid,  even  Christ 
Jesus  :  w4io  tasted  death  for  every  man,  shed  his  blood  for  all  men, 
is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the 
sins  of  the  whole  world;  according  as  John  the  Baptist  testified  of 
him,  when  he  said  "  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh  away 
the  sins  of  the  world,"  John,  i.  29.  We  believe  that  he  alone  is 
our  Redeemer  and  Saviour,  the  captain  of  our  salvation,  who 
saves  us  from  sin,  as  well  as  from  hell,  and  the  wrath  to  come, 
and  destroys  the  devil  and  his  works  ;  he  is  the  seed  of  the  woman 
that  bruises  the  serpent's  head,  to  wit,  Christ  Jesus,  the  Alpha  and 
Omega,  the  first  and  the  last.  He  is  (as  the  Scriptures  of  truth 
say  of  him)  our  wisdom,  righteousness,  justification,  and  redemp- 
tion ;  neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other,  for  there  is  no  other 
name  under  heaven  given  among  men,  whereby  we  may  be  sav- 
ed. He  alone,  is  the  shepherd  and  bishop  of  our  souls:  he  is  our 
prophet,  whom  Moses  long  since  testified  of,  saying,  "  a  prophet 
shall  the  Lord  your  God  raise  up  unto  you  of  your  brethren,  like 
unto  me ;  him  shall  ye  hear  in  all  things,  whatsoever  he  shall  say 
unto  you ;  and  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  every  soul  that  will  not 
hear  that  prophet,  shall  be  destroyed  from  among  the  people."  Acts, 


18 

ii.  22.  23.  He  is  now  come  in  spirit,  "  and  hath  given  us  an  un- 
derstanding, that  we  know  him  that  is  true."  He  rules  in  our 
hearts  by  his  law  of  love  and  life,  and  makes  us  free  from  the  law 
of  sin  and  death.  We  have  no  life,  but  by  him ;  for  he  is  the  quick- 
ening spirit,  the  second  Adam,  the  Lord  from  heaven,  by  whose 
blood  we  are  cleansed,  and  our  consciences  sprinkled  from  dead 
works,  to  serve  the  Uving  God.  He  is  our  mediator,  who  makes 
peace  and  reconciliation  between  God  offended  and  us  offending ; 
he  being  the  oath  of  God,  the  new  covenant  of  light,  life,  grace, 
and  peace,  the  author  and  finisher  of  our  faith.  This  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  heavenly  man,  the  Emanuel,  God  with  us,  we  all  own 
and  believe  in ;  he  whom  the  high-priest  raged  against,  and  said, 
he  had  spoken  blasphemy ;  whom  the  priests  and  elders  of  the  Jews 
took  counsel  together  against,  and  put  to  death ;  the  same  M'hom 
Judas  betrayed  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  which  the  priests  gave 
him  as  a  reward  for  his  treason ;  who  also  gave  large  money  to 
the  soldiers,  to  broach  a  horrible  lie,  namely,  "  that  his  disciples 
came  and  stole  him  away  by  night  whilst  they  slept."  After  he 
was  risen  from  the  dead,  the  history  of  the  acts  of  the  apostles  sets 
forth  how  the  chief  priests  and  elders  persecuted  the  disciples  of 
this  Jesus,  for  preaching  Christ  and  his  resurrection.  This,  we 
say,  is  that  Lord  Jesus  Christ  whom  we  own  to  be  our  life  and 
salvation, 

"Concerning  the  holy  Scriptures,  we  believe  they  were 
given  forth  by  the  holy  spirit  of  God,  through  the  holy  men 
of  God,  who  (as  the  Scripture  itself  declares,  2  Pet.  i.  2L) 
"  spoke  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  We  be- 
lieve that  they  are  to  be  read,  believed,  and  fulfilled  (he  that 
fulfils  them  is  Chi'ist;)  and  they  are  "  profitable  for  reproof, 
for  correction,  and  for  instruction  in  righteousness,  that  the 
man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good 
works,"  2  Tim.  iii.  19.  "  and  are  able  to  make  wise  unto  salvation, 
through  faith  in  Christ  Jesus."  We  believe  the  holy  Scriptures 
are  the  words  of  God;  for  it  is  said  in  Exodus,  xx.  1.  "  God  spake 
all  these  words,  saying,"  &c.  meaning  the  ten  commandments 
given  forth  upon  Mount  Sinai.  And  in  Rev.  xxii.  18.  saith  John, 
"  I  testify  to  every  man  that  heareth  the  words  of  the  prophecy  of 
this  book,  if  any  man  addeth  unto  these,  and  if  any  man  shall  take 
away  from  the  words  of  the  book  of  this  prophecy,"  ( not  the 


19 

word)  &c.  So  in  Luke,  i,  20.  "  because  thou  believest  not  my 
words."  And  in  John,  v.  47.  xv.  7.  xiv.  23.  xii.  47.  So  that  we 
call  the  holy  Scriptures,  as  Christ,  the  apostles,  and  holy  men  of 
God  called  them,  viz.  the  words  of  God. 

"  Another  slander  they  have  cast  upon  us,  is,  "  that  we  teach 
the  negroes  to  rebel ;"  a  thing  we  utterly  abhor  in  our  hearts,  the 
Lord  knows  it,  who  is  the  searcher  of  all  hearts,  and  knows  all 
things,  and  can  testify  for  us,  that  this  is  a  most  abominable  un- 
truth. That  which  we  have  spoken  to  them,  is  to  exhort  and  ad- 
monish them  to  be  sober,  to  fear  God,  to  love  their  masters  and 
mistresses,  to  be  faithful  and  diligent  in  their  service  and  business, 
and  then  their  masters  and  overseers  would  love  them,  and  deal 
kindly  and  gently  with  them ;  also  that  they  should  not  beat  their 
wives,  nor  the  wives  their  husbands ;  neither  should  the  men  have 
many  wives  ;  that  they  should  not  steal,  nor  be  drunk,  nor  commit 
adultery,  nor  fornication,  nor  curse,  swear,  nor  lie,  nor  give  bad 
words  to  one  another,  nor  to  any  one  else ;  for  there  is  something 
in  them  that  tells  them  they  should  not  practice  these  nor  any  other 
evils.  But  if  they  notwithstanding  should  do  them,  then  we  let 
them  know  there  are  but  two  ways,  the  one  that  leads  to  hea- 
ven, where  the  righteous  go;  and  the  other  that  leads  to  hell, 
where  the  wicked  and  debauched,  whoremongers,  adulterers,  mur- 
derers, and  hars  go.  To  the  one,  the  Lord  will  say,  "  come  ye 
blessed  of  my  Father,  inherit  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  from 
the  foundation  of  the  world ;"  to  the  other,  "  depart,  ye  cursed, 
into  everlasting  fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels ;"  so  the 
wicked  go  into  "  everlasting  punishment,  but  the  righteous  into 
life  eternal,"  Mat.  xxv.  Consider,  friends,  it  is  no  transgression 
for  a  master  of  a  family  to  instruct  his  family  himself,  or  for  oth- 
ers to  do  it  in  his  behalf;  but  rather  it  is  a  very  great  duty  incum- 
bent upon  them.  Abraham  and  Joshua  did  so :  of  the  first,  the 
Lord  said,  Gen.  xviii.  19.  "I  know  that  Abraham  will  command 
his  children,  and  his  household  after  him;  and  they  shall  keep  the 
way  of  the  Lord,  to  do  justice  and  judgment,  that  the  Lord  may 
bring  upon  Abraham  the  things  that  he  hath  spoken  of  him."  And 
the  latter  said,  Josh.  xxiv.  15.  "Choose  ye  this  day  whom  ye 
will  serve — but  as  for  me  and  my  house,  we  will  serve  the  Lord." 
We  declare,  that  we  esteem  it  a  duty  incumbent  on  us  to  pray 
with  and  for,  to  teach,  instruct,  and  admonish  those  in  and  belong- 


20 

ing  to  our  families :  this  being  a  command  of  the  Lord,  disobe- 
dience thereunto  will  provoke  his  displeasure  ;  as  may  be  seen  in 
Jer.  X.  25.  i"  Pour  out  thy  fury  upon  the  heathen  that  know  thee 
not,  and  upon  the  families  that  call  not  upon  thy  name."  Ne- 
groes, tawnies,  Indians,  make  up  a  very  great  part  of  the  fami- 
lies in  this  island ;  for  whom  an  account  will  be  required  by  him 
who  comes  to  judge  both  quick  and  dead  at  the  great  day  of  judg- 
ment, when  every  one  shall  be  "  rewarded  according  to  the  deeds 
done  in  the  body,  whether  they  be  good  or  whether  they  be  evil :" 
at  that  day,  we  say,  of  the  resurrection  both  of  the  good  and  of 
the  bad,  and  of  the  just  and  the  unjust,  when  "  the  Lord  Jesus  shall 
be  revealed  from  heaven  with  his  mighty  angels,  with  flaming  fire, 
taking  vengeance  on  them  that  know  not  God,  and  obey  not  the 
gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  shall  be  punished  with  ever- 
lasting destruction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  from  the 
glory  of  his  power,  when  he  shall  come  to  be  glorified  in  his  saints, 
and  admired  in  all  them  that  believe  in  that  day,"  2  Thess.  i.  8. 
&c.     See  also,  2  Pet.  iii.  3.  &c." 

It  would  be  impossible  for  man  to  select  language  stronger  than 
this,  in  support  of  these  very  doctrines  for  which  we  are  now  con- 
tending. 

In  the  confession  of  faith,  subjoined  to  their  catechism,  and  prov- 
ed to  have  been  adopted  by  the  yearly  meeting,  these  doctrines 
are  distinctly  and  unequivocally  avowed. 

I  shall  now  refer  the  court  to  some  very  important  public  acts 
and  proceedings  of  this  society,  an  account  of  which  is  to  be  met 
with  in  Sewell's  History,  without  taking  time  to  read  all  the 
passages.  When  George  Keith  abandoned  the  faith  of  this  socie- 
ty, he  made  heavy  and  severe  charges  against  them,  charging 
them  with  maintaining  the  doctrines  now  ascribed  to  Elias  Hicks. 
About  this  time,  the  Friends  came  out  boldly  and  denied  it,  and  in 
a  public  address,  published  by  them  on  that  occasion,  they  pro- 
claimed the  doctrines  for  which  we  are  now  contending.*  Short- 
ly afterwards,  they  presented  a  document  to  the  parliament  of 
Great  Britain,  on  finding  that  these  charges  of  Keith  were  repeat- 
ed by  Francis  Bugg,  which  is  in  these  words : 

1.  "Be  it  known  to  all,  that  we  sincerely  believe  and  confess, 

*  2  Sewell's  History,  ^99. 


21 

that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ,who  was  born  of  the  Virghi  Mary,  is  the  true 
Messiah,  the  very  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  hving  God,  to  whom  all 
the  prophets  gave  witness  ;  and  that  we  do  highly  value  his  death, 
sufferings,  works,  offices,  and  merits,  for  the  redemption  of  man- 
kind, together  with  his  laws,  doctrine,  and  ministry. 

II.  "  That  this  very  Christ  of  God,  who  is  the  Lamb  of  God,  that 
takes  away  the  sins  of  the  world,  was  slain,  was  dead,  and  is  aUve, 
and  lives  forever  in  his  divine  eternal  glory,  dominion,  and  power 
with  the  Father. 

III.  "  That  the  holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testam.ent, 
are  of  divine  authority,  as  being  given  by  inspiration  of  God. 

IV.  "  And  that  magistracy  or  civil  government,  is  God's  ordi- 
nance, the  good  ends  thereof  being  for  the  punishment  of  evil-do- 
ers, and  praise  of  them  that  do  well." 

A  difficulty  occurred  which  prevented  them  from  enjoying  the 
benefits  of  the  toleration  act,  owing  to  their  refusal  to  take  the  oath 
required.  By  interceding  with  the  parliament,  they  at  length  suc- 
ceeded in  procuring  a  participation  of  its  benefits,  by  getting  the 
affirmation  substituted  in  the  place  of  the  oath.*  Now  this  tolera- 
tion act,  directly  and  palpably  excluded  unitarians  from  its  bene- 
fits. The  holding  of  unitarian  doctrines  was  rendered  penal  by 
another  act  of  parliament,  passed  a  few  years  afterwards,  and  they 
were  not  tolerated  in  England  until  the  year  eighteen  hundred 
and  thirteen.  Yet  the  Quakers  came  in  and  were  cherished  under 
the  wings  of  the  toleration  act.  On  the  promise  by  queen  Anne,  on 
her  accession  to  the  throne,  to  support  the  toleration  act,  the 
yearly  meeting  presented  a  thankful  address  to  her  majesty.  A 
similar  address  was  sent  to  George  I.  upon  a  like  promise  by  him, 
on  his  accession  to  the  throne. 

What  then,  shall  we  say  to  these  public  and  official  manifestos, 
thus  solemnly  put  forth,  and  upon  the  strength  of  which,  important 
parliamentary  privileges  have  been  obtained  and  enjoyed  ?  Shall 
we  say  they  were  all  delusive  ?  A  mere  promise  to  the  ear,  to 
catch  the  favor  of  the  government.  Elias  Hicks  has  been  com- 
pelled to  say  of  the  letter  of  Fox  to  the  governor  of  Barbadoes, 

*  Burnett's  History  of  his  own  Times,  3.  13. 


22 

which  he  found  staring  in  the  face  of  his  new  doctrines,  that  it 
did  not  contain  Fox's  real  sentiments.  But  are  his  adherents 
prepared  to  follow  him  in  these  charges,  and  to  extend  them  to 
the  whole  society  at  that  early  period  ?  Are  they  prepared  to  say 
that  their  forefathers  were  timid,  false,  and  hollow  hearted?  Afraid 
to  hold  forth  their  real  sentiments,  and  brave  the  danger  ?  That 
their  forefathers,  in  this  country,  were  equally  insincere,  by  con- 
niving at  their  falsehood,  and  continuing  in  unity  with  them?  Ai'e 
not  these  charges,  when  made  by  their  enemies,  belied  by  the 
whole  tenor  of  their  conduct?  and  have  they  not,  therefore,  when 
thus  made,  been  repelled  by  this  society?  During  all  this  period, 
they  were  suffering  persecution  for  refusing  to  engage  in  military 
operations,  and  to  pay  tithes.  Were  they  false  to  some  of  their 
principles  and  true  to  others?  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the 
zeal  of  the  early  Friends  in  many  particulars,  the  charge  of  insin- 
cerity cannot  with  any  propriety  be  made  against  them.  And 
we  are  in  possession  of  the  conclusive  fact,  that  they  pubhcly  held 
forth  these  doctrines,  and  enjoyed  the  benefits  flowing  from  their 
promulgation. 

The  preaching  of  ministers,  approved  and  accepted  by  a  reli- 
gious society,  must  furnish  strong  evidence  of  the  doctrines  held 
by  it.  As  a  catechism  is  designed  for  the  instruction  of  youth,  the 
preacher  is  provided  and  designed  for  the  instruction  of  all,  whe- 
ther old  or  young.  Hence,  in  this  society,  great  care  is  bestowed 
upon  the  setting  apart  of  experienced,  pious,  and  intelligent  per- 
sons for  the  ministry,  and  the  elders  are  especially  required  by  the 
discipline,  to  exercise  a  vigilance,  and  to  admonish  and  reprove 
them  for  a  departure  in  faith  or  doctrine.  William  Jackson,  an 
aged  witness,  who  has  travelled  over  England  and  this  country, 
and  has  heard  all  their  ministers  -who  have  appeared  in  his  time, 
before  and  since  the  American  revolution,  tells  us  that  they  have 
uniformly  held  forth  these  doctrines,  and  no  witness  contradicts 
him,  or  pretends  that  any  other  doctrines  have  been  put  forth  in 
the  ministry,  except  by  Elias  Hicks  and  his  associates. 

If  these  were  not  the  settled  doctrines  of  the  society,  how,  or 
why,  has  it  happened  that  they  have  been  uniformly  preached 
among  them?  If  the  conti-ary  doctrines  were  held  in  this  society 
indiscriminately,  why  was  it  reserved  for  Elias  Hicks  and  his  asso- 
ciates to  broach  them  for  the  first  time  ?     Why  has  this  light 


23 

beamed  from  that  source  alone  '.      This  is  unaccountable  upon 
their  pretensions. 

We  have  produced  witness  after  witness,  aged,  intelligent,  ex- 
perienced men,  of  character  irreproachable;  men  whose  lives  have 
been  devoted  to  the  cause  of  religion,  Samuel  Bettle,  Thomas 
WilHs,  William  Jackson  and  others,  whose  evidence  is  before 
you,  and  will  be  carefully  inspected;  who  join  in  saying,  that 
these  are  the  established  doctrines  of  that  society;  and  that 
those  who  hold  the  contrary  doctrine  are  not  in  the  same  faith 
with  the  society.  They  cannot  be  mistaken.  Have  they  tes- 
tified to  what  is  not  true?  Let  the  negative  evidence  of  the 
witnesses  on  the  other  side  answer  that  question.  When  asked 
to  disclose  their  doctrines  and  the  doctrines  of  this  society,  in 
reference  to  these  points,  they  invariably  refuse.  And  why? 
Because  they  say  they  are  not  bound  to  answer.  They  do 
not  pretend  that  they  are  scrupulous  against  disclosing  their  re- 
ligious belief;  on  the  contrary  they  are  eager  to  disclose  it  on 
other  points,  such  as  the  light  within,  their  scruples  about  oaths, 
and  other  matters.  But  they  refuse  to  disclose  on  these  points, 
because  as  they  pretend,  they  are  not  bound  to  do  so.  The 
plain  inference  is,  that  such  a  disclosure  would  be  fatal  to  their 
cause. 

I  will  next  refer  the  court  to  the  standard  Morks  of  this  socie- 
ty, Barclay's  Apology,  his  w^ork  on  church  government,  The  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  Sewell's  History',  Fox's  Journal,  and  others, 
proved  to  be  standard  works  of  the  society,  and  made  exhibits  in 
this  cause.*  I  might  read  for  days,  from  the  WTitings  of  these  au- 
thors, in  support  of  these  doctrines,  but  I  forbear  to  proceed  any 
further  with  it.  I  will  direct  the  court,  however,  to  Evans'  Expo- 
sition, as  containing  numerous  other  references  to  the  standard 
works  of  the  society,  in  suppport  of  these  doctrines.  I  advert  to 
it,  however,  merely  as  a  book  of  reference,  intending  in  this  case, 
to  rely  only  on  evidence  which  arose  and  existed  prior  to  this  dis- 
sention. 

But  there  is  one  writer  belonging  to  this  society,  who  has  been 
so  much  commented  upon  and  alluded  to  in  the  examination  of 
witnesses  in  this  cause,  that  it  will  not  do  to  pass  him  over  with- 

*  Mr.  Wood  hero  road  a  varicfj'  of  passages  from  tliese  different  autliors. 


24 

out  special  notice.  I  have  said  that  amidst  all  the  persecutions 
inflicted  upon  the  early  Friends,  they  were  never  punished  for 
holding  doctrines  repugnant  to  those  now  avowed  on  our  side, 
with  but  one  exception.  I  allude  to  the  case  of  William  Penn. 
The  character  of  this  man  does  not  require  our  praise,  and  would 
not  be  affected  by  our  censure.  On  this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  he 
has  left  the  impress  of  his  genius,  and  of  his  goodness,  which  will 
pass  down  to  the  remotest  posterity.  He  is  the  founder  of  a  state, 
among  the  most  prominent  of  our  Union,  which  for  all  the  virtues 
that  impart  strength  and  stability  to  national  character,  is  surpass- 
ed by  none.  He  has  formed  and  given  us  a  doric  pillar  to  sup- 
port the  capitol  of  our  empire. 

But  we  have  now  to  do  with  his  religious  writings.  The  wit- 
nesses tell  us,  that  although  Penn  has  always  been  highly  respected, 
yet  his  works  are  seldom  resorted  to  as  standards,  in  respect  to 
the  doctrines  of  the  society.  And  the  reason  is  obvious.  Penn 
is  a  controversial  writer,  and  in  his  arguments,  struck  out  in  the 
heat  of  controversy,  he  is  sometimes  obscure.  His  object  is  not 
so  much  to  establish  his  own  positions,  as  to  overturn  those  of  his 
adversary.  He  attacks  him  with  vigor,  but  is  not  sufficiently  on 
his  guard  against  misinterpretation.  He  traces  out  the  reasoning 
of  his  opponent,  in  order  to  show  the  absurdity  of  his  results.  But 
those  results  sometimes  have  the  appearance  of  being  his  own  in- 
dependent conclusions.  This  is  particularly  the  case  in  his  Sandy 
Foundation  Shaken,  a  work  which  is  exclusively  controversial, 
and  which  has  sometimes  subjected  him  to  the  charge  of  socini- 
anism,  and  sometimes  of  unqualified  infidelity,  from  the  want  of 
attending  sufficiently  to  the  drift  of  the  author.  He  had  a  public 
religious  coutroversy,  according  to  the  fashion  of  the  times,  with 
the  Reverend  Thomas  Vincent,  upon  three  points  of  divinity.  He 
disputes  his  adversary's  doctrine  as  to  the  three  persons  in  the  tri- 
nity, or  modes  of  subsistence.  He  did  not  mean  to  deny  the  tri- 
nity, or  the  three  in  the  Godhead,  so  far  as  it  is  revealed,  accord- 
ing to  the  opinion  of  this  society,  in  the  Scriptures.  In  the  next 
place,  he  denies  the  position,  that  there  is  an  absolute  disabihty  in 
the  Supreme  Being  to  forgive  without  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  of 
the  high  and  exalted  character,  which  he  admits  was  made  :  he 
does  not  deny  the  fact  of  such  a  sacrifice,  and  of  its  necessity  under 
the  actual  state  of  the  christian  dispensation.     In  the  last  place,  he 


25 

denies  the  exclusiue  justification  of  impure  pei'sons  by  an  imputa- 
tive righteousness.  The  fact  that  a  benefit  is  imparted  to  the  chris- 
tian through  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  under  this  dispensation, 
he  does  not  deny;  but  he  contends  for  the  additional  necessity  of 
repentance  and  good  works.  In  the  course  of  his  remarks,  to  be 
sure,  he  does,  m  terms,  deny  three  persons  in  the  Godliead  and  the 
propitiatory  sacrifice,  but  in  what  way,  and  for  what  purpose  1 
Not  as  his  own  independent  conclusions,  but  as  the  results  to  which 
the  course  of  reasoning  pursued  by  his  antagonist,  to  prove  his 
positions,  will  lead  him,  when  followed  out,  and  with  a  view  to 
shew  the  fallacy  of  all  human  reasoning  upon  subjects  beyond 
human  comprehension.  This  is  evident  from  the  following  passage, 
in  page  252:  "For  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  G.  W.  (George 
Whitehead,  his  coadjutor,  )  is  no  otherwise  a  blasphemer, 
than  by  drawing  direct  consequences  from  their  own  principles, 
and  re-charging  them  upon  themselves  ;  so  that  he  did  not  speak 
his  own  apprehensions,  by  his  comparison,  but  the  sense  of  their 
assertion." 

On  the  subject  of  the  trinity,  he  states  the  syllogism  of  his  ad- 
versary in  the  following  words  : 

"  There  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven :  the  Father,  the 
Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  these  three  are  one. 

"  These  are  either  three  manifestations ;  three  operations ;  three 
subsistences,  or  three  somethings  besides  subsistences  : 

"  But  they  are  not  three  manifestations  ;  three  operations  ;  three 
subsistences,  nor  three  any  thing  else  besides  subsistences :  ergo 
three  subsistences." 

He  then  attempts,  in  the  course  of  his  argument,  to  shew  that 
the  conclusion  of  his  opponent  is  erroneously  drawn,  because  the 
premises  are  beyond  his  comprehension.  The  subject  of  this  in- 
vestigation is  the  Supreme  Jehovah.  What  does  man  know 
about  the  nature  and  essence  of  that  Being,  who  is  to  him  incom- 
prehensible? He  knows  nothing  of  the  essence,  and  but  little  as 
to  the  modes  of  operation  of  those  spiritual  intelligences  which 
are  brought  under  his  observation.  He  can  form  no  conception 
of  the  manner  in  which  even  they,  could  operate  upon  external 
objects,  when  disembodied  of  the  organic  Hving  matter  which 
surrounds  them.  How  then  can  he  form  an  idea  of  the  essence, 
the  operations,  or  of  the  mode  of  subsistence  of  the  Supreme  Be- 


26 

ing.  And  if  he  cannot  conceive  it,  how  can  he  undertake  to  analyze 
it,  or  reason  upon  the  analysis.  When  he  looks  with  the  astrono- 
mer, at  the  myriads  of  worlds  which  are  spread  through  the  hea- 
vens, and  hence  infers  the  myriads  of  other  worlds  in  the  vast 
field  of  space  beyond  them,  he  may  form  some  faint  and  indistinct 
conception  of  that  wisdom,  and  of  that  power,  which  sustains  this 
mighty  creation ;  but  what  can  he  know,  or  presume  to  know,  of 
the  mode  of  subsistence  of  such  a  Being.  And  yet  you,  Thomas 
Vincent,  bounded  in  your  views  by  the  petty  horizon  that  sur- 
rounds you,  a  mere  ant  upon  a  mole-hill,  undertake,  in  a  syllogism ; 
to  limit  the  possibility  of  existence  of  that  Being,  M'ho  is  beyond 
and  above  all  human  comprehension.  But  we  will  try  the  strength 
of  your  syllogism  upon  your  own  principles.  You  say  these  three 
are  not  three  manifestations,  in  three  essences,  and  therefore  there 
are  three  modes  of  subsistence.  There  cannot  be  a  mode  of  sub- 
sistence,  according  to  any  notion  we  can  form  upon  the  sub- 
ject, distinct  from  the  essence  which  does  subsist.  If,  then, 
there  are  three  modes  of  subsistence,  there  must  be  three  essen- 
ces ;  and  consequently,  upon  your  own  principles,  three  Gods. 
But  the  Scriptures  teach  us  that  there  is  but  one  God.  Such,  I 
take  to  be  the  scope  and  drift  of  the  reasoning  of  William  Penn, 
in  his  Sandy  Foundation  Shaken,  And  he  pursues  the  same 
course  in  his  argument  upon  the  other  points  between  them. 
That  there  might  be  no  misconception  of  his  object,  he  winds  up 
with  saying: 

"  Mistake  me  not — we  never  have  disowned,  a  Father,  Word, 
and  Spirit,  which  are  one ;  but  mens'  inventions." 

His  peculiar  mode  of  reasoning  on  controversial  subjects,  is 
further  illustrated  in  the  Guide  Mistaken,  in  the  second  volume  of 
his  works.  He  states,  in  the  form  of  queries,  a  number  of  propo- 
sitions, which  are  in  themselves  directly  repugnant  to  the  doc- 
trines of  the  society  to  which  he  was  attached,  and  of  all  other 
trinitarian  sects.  But  he  concludes  with  explaining  himself  fully, 
that  those  are  not  his  own  opinions,  but  the  conclusions  to  which 
he  had  brought  the  erroneous  reasoning  of  his  opponent. 

Penn  departed,  in  one  particular,  from  the  views  of  tjiis  socie- 
ty. The  same  caution  which  induces  them  to  refrain  from  ad- 
ding to  Scriptural  views,  the  inferences  of  human  reason  upon 
mysterious  subjects,  leads  them  to  abstain  from  all  discussion  up- 


27 

on  such  subjects.  But  Penn  was  then  young.  He  had  been  edu- 
cated in  all  the  liberal  acquirements  of  the  age,  and  he  could  not 
resist  the  temptation  of  bandying  a  syllogism  with  the  Reverend 
Thomas  Vincent.  It  must  be  admitted  that  there  is  an  obsciu-ity 
in  some  of  his  controversial  writings,  which  lays  him  open  occa- 
sionally, to  misconception.  He  was  misconceived.  He  was 
charged  with  blasphemy.  The  magistrates^  perhaps^  were  not 
skilled  in  syllogystic  reasoning,  or  able  to  comprehend  his  object, 
and  he  was  cast  into  prison.  Thus  was  imprisoned,  on  the  charge 
of  blasphemy,  the  man  who  was  destined,  at  no  distant  period,  to 
disarm  the  savage  of  the  wilderness,  of  his  ferocity,  and  to  cause 
him,  witli  his  hatchet  buried,  to  look  in  admiration  upon  the  calm- 
ness and  integrity  of  a  christian. 

In  the  second  volume  of  his  works,  from  page  783  to  785,  you 
will  find  a  view  of  his  religious  doctrines  in  full  accordance  with 
those  ascribed  by  us  to  this  society. 

"  Perversion  .  The  Quakers  deny  the  trinity. 

"  Principle.  Nothing  less :  They  believe  in  the  holy  three,  or  trin- 
ity, of  Father,  Word,  and  Spirit,  according  to  Scripture;  and  that 
these  three  are  truly  and  properly  one :  of  one  nature  as  well  as 
will.  But  they  are  very  tender  of  quitting  Scripture  terms  and 
phrases,  for  schoolmen's ;  such  as  distinct  and  separate  persons 
and  subsistences,  &c.  are ;  from  whence  people  are  apt  to  enter- 
tain gross  ideas  and  notions  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 
And  they  judge,  that  a  curious  inquiry  into  those  high  and  divine 
relations,  and  other  speculative  subjects,  though  never  so  great 
truths  in  themselves,  tend  little  to  godhness,  and  less  to  peace  ; 
which  should  be  the  chief  aim  of  true  christians.  And  therefore 
they  cannot  gratify  that  curiosity  in  themselve,  or  others ;  specu- 
lative truths  being,  in  their  judgment,  to  be  sparingly  and  tender- 
ly declared,  and  never  to  be  made  the  measure  and  condition  of 
christian  communion.  For  besides  that  Christ  Jesus  hath  taught 
them  other  things,  the  sad  consequence,  in  all  times,  of  superfinino- 
upon  Scripture  texts,  do  sufficiently  caution  and  forbid  them. 
jMen  are  too  apt  to  let  their  heads  outrun  their  hearts,  and  their 
notion  exceed  their  obedience,  and  their  passion  support  their  con- 
ceits;  instead  of  a  daily  cross,  a  constant  watch,  and  an  holy 
practice.  The  despised  Quakers  desire  this  may  be  their  care, 
and  the  text  their  creed  in  this,  as  in  all  other  points :  preferring 


28 

self-denial  to  opinion,  and  charity  to  knowledge,  according  to  that 
great  christian  doctrine.  1   Coj:  xiii. 

"  Pervers.  The  Quakers  deny  Christ  to  be  God. 

^^Princ.  A  most  untrue  and  unreasonable  censure:  for  their 
great  and  characteristic  principle  being  this ;  that  Christ,  as  the  di- 
vine word,  lighteth  the  souls  of  all  men  that  come  into  the  world, 
with  a  spiritual  and  saving  light,  according  to  John  1.  9.  ch.  8.  xii. 
(which  nothing  but  the  Creator  of  souls  can  do)  it  does  sufficient- 
ly shew  they  believe  him  to  be  God,  for  they  truly  and  expressly 
own  him  to  be  so,  according  to  Scripture,  viz :  in  him  was  life, 
and  that  life  the  light  of  man  ;  and  he  is  God  over  all,  blessed  for 
ever. 

'■''Pervers.     The  Quakers  deny  the  human  nature  of  Christ. 

"  Prirtc.  We  never  taught,  said,  or  held  so  gross  a  thing,  if  by 
human  nature  be  understood  the  manhood  of  Christ  Jesus.  For 
as  we  believe  him  to  be  God  over  all,  blessed  forever,  so  we  do 
as  truly  believe  him  to  be  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  and  David  af- 
ter the  flesh,  and  therefore  truly  and  properly  man,  like  us  in  all 
things  (and  once  subject  to  all  things  for  our  sakes)  sin  only  ex- 
cepted. 

^^  Pervers.  The  Quakers  expect  to  be  justified  and  saved 
by  the  light  within  them,  and  not  by  the  death  and  sufferings  of 
Christ. 

•'  Princ.  This  is  both  unfairly  and  untruly  stated  and  charged 
upon  us.  But  the  various  sense  of  the  word  justification,  obliges 
me  here  to  distinguish  the  use  of  it ;  for  in  the  natural  and  proper 
sense,  it  plainly  implies  making  men  just,  that  were  unjust;  god- 
ly, that  were  ungodly ;  upright  that  were  depraved ;  as  the  apos- 
tle expresseth  himself,  1.  Cor.  6.  xi.  and  such  were  some  of  you, 
but  ye  are  washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified,  but  ye  are  justified  in  the 
name  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  spirit  of  our  God.  In  the 
other  use  of  the  word,  which  some  call  a  law  sense,  it  refers  to 
Christ,  as  a  sacrifice  and  propitiation  for  sin,  as  in  Rom.  5.  ix. 
Much  more  then  being  now  justified  by  his  blood,  we  shall  be  sa- 
ved from  wrath  through  him  ;  and  1  John  ii.  If  any  man  sin,  we 
have  an  advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous ;  and 
he  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins ;  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also 
for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  Which,  though  a  great  truth, 
and  most  firmly  believed  by  us;  yet  no  man  can  be  entitled  to  the 


29 

benefit  thereof,  but  as  they  come  to  beheve  and  repent  of  the  evil 
of  their  ways;  and  then  it  may  be  truly  said,  that  God  justifieth 
even  the  ungodly,  and  looks  upon  them  through  Christ,  as  if  they 
had  never  sinned ;  because  their  sins  are  forgiven  them  for  his  be- 
loved Son's  sake." 

I  submit  with  confidence  to  this  court,  that  obscure  passages, 
in  the  heat  of  argument,  of  a  controversial  writer,  afterwards  ful- 
ly explained,  do  not  militate  against  us.  I  have  adverted  to  Penn's 
works,  not  because  we  rely  upon  them,  for  they  are  not  made  an 
exhibit  in  the  cause,  but  with  a  view  to  shew  that  when  rightly 
understood,  they  cannot  be  used  as  a  weapon  against  us. 

My  next  position  is,  that  these  doctrines  are,  with  this  society, 
fundamental.  Samuel  Bettle,  in  his  deposition,  states  them  to  be 
so.  One  test  of  fundamental  doctrines  is,  that  a  disbelief  in  them 
constitutes  a  ground  of  disownment.  And  these  are  proved  to  be 
so.  They  are  so  considered  by  Barclay  on  church  government.  * 
Upon  this  point  the  discipline,  as  I  have  already  shewn,  is  posi- 
tive. 

But  these  doctrines,  wherever  they  are  entertained,  must  be 
considered  as  fundamental.  Before  you  could  treat  them  othenvise, 
you  must  change  the  nature  of  man,  and  his  principles  of  action. 
The  idea  that  a  religious  society  could  exist  in  harmony,  or  even 
exist  at  all,  for  any  length  of  time,  where  all  sorts  of  opinions  up- 
on such  subjects  are  allowed,  is  altogether  arcadian  and  visiona- 
ry. You  might  as  well  expect  that  sincere  christians,  and  ma- 
hometans,  could  harmoniously  worship  together  in  a  mosque.  No 
good  could  come  from  such  a  state  of  things,  but  on  the  contrary, 
it  would  have  a  most  demoralizing  tendency.  One  preacher  would 
rise  up,  and  descant  upon  the  glory  and  majesty  of  the  Great 
Head  of  the  christian  church,  inculcate  the  deep  reverence  and 
devotion  that  were  due  to  his  character.  Another  would  rise, 
and  like  Ehas  Hicks,  would  endeavor  to  depreciate  him  ;  caution 
his  hearers  against  relying  too  much  upon  him;  urge  them  to  en- 
deavor to  rise  up  to  an  equality  with  him,  and  to  cast  away  the 
Scriptures  as  mere  props,  that  can  aid  the  christian  only  in  the 
infancy  of  his  spiritual  life.  What  would  be  the  effect  of  such 
contradictory  exhibitions  ?  Would  it  not  degrade  the  whole  sys- 
tem 1     Would  it  not  infuse  into  the  society,  if  persisted  in,  a  uni- 

*  Page,  53,  59,  and  tlie  declaration  of  faith  appended  to  the  catechism,  p.  11, 


so 

versal  scepticism,  and  spread  among  the  youth  a  contempt  and 
disregard  for  all  religious  sentiments  1  Or  rather,  would  it  not, 
eventually,  as  it  has  done  in  the  present  instance,  involve  the  so- 
ciety in  confusion  and  conflict,  and  lead  to  a  final  separation. 
Such  must  in  all  cases  be  its  effects ;  and  while  this  view  of  the 
subject  shews  that  these  doctrines  are  fundamental,  wherever  they 
are  entertained,  it  shews  at  the  same  time,  that  this  society  never 
could  have  tolerated  the  broad  latitude  of  doctrine,  upon  the  Uto- 
pian principles  contended  for  on  the  other  side.  The  unity  and 
harmony  upon  which  they  dehght  to  expatiate,  would  have  lasted 
about  as  long  as  the  "  Orthodox"  and  "  Hicksites"  continued  to- 
gether, after  Elias  Hicks  let  in  upon  them  his  flood  of  new  light. 

I  now  propose  to  shew  that  the  "  Hicksite"  party  hold  the  doc- 
trines ascribed  to  them  in  the  answer  of  Joseph  Hendrickson.  In 
that  answer  they  are  thus  stated :  "The  "  Hicksite"  party  afore- 
said do  not  adopt  and  believe  in  the  above  mentioned  doctrines ; 
but  entertain  opinions  entirely  and  absolutely  repugnant  and  con- 
trary thereto,"  (alluding  to  the  three  doctrines  in  question.)  In  re- 
gard to  the  first  religious  doctrine  above  named, 

"  Although  the  society  of  Friends  have  seldom  made  use  of  the 
word  trinity,  yet  they  believe  in  the  existence  of  the  Father,  the 
the  Son,  or  Word,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  That  the  Son  was  God, 
and  became  flesh ;  that  there  is  one  God,  and  Father,  of  whom  are 
all  things;  that  there  is  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  all  things 
were  made,  who  was  glorified  with  the  Father  before  the  world 
began,  who  is  God  over  all,  blessed  forever;  that  there  is  one  Ho- 
ly Spirit,  the  promise  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  the  leader,  and 
sanctifier,  and  comforter  of  his  people,  and  that  these  three  are 
one,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Spirit ;  that  the  principal  dif- 
ference between  the  people  called  Quakers,  and  the  other  protest- 
ant  trinitarian  sects,  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  is, 
that  the  latter  attach  the  idea  of  individual  personage  to  the  three, 
as  what  they  consider  a  fair  logical  inference  from  the  doctrines 
expressly  laid  down  in  the  holy  Scriptures.  The  people  called 
Quakers,  on  the  other  hand,  considering  it  a  mystery,  beyond 
finite,  human  conception,  take  up  the  doctrine  as  expressly  laid 
down  in  the  Scripture,  and  have  not  considered  themselves  as 
warranted  in  making  deductions,  however  specious. 

"The   people   called   Quakers   have  always   believed   in    ll:c 


31 

doctrine  of  the  atonement;  that  the  divine  and  human  na- 
ture of  Jesus  Christ  the  Saviour  were  united;  that  thus  uni- 
ted, he  suffered ;  and  that  through  his  suflerings,  death  and  re- 
surrection, he  atoned  for  the  sins  of  men.  That  the  Son  of  God, 
in  the  fuhiess  of  time  took  flesh,  became  perfect  man,  according  to 
the  flesh,  descended  and  came  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  and  Da- 
vid ;  that  being  with  God  from  all  eternity,  being  himself  God, 
and  also  in  time  partaking  of  the  nature  of  man,  through  him  is 
the  goodness  and  love  of  God  conveyed  to  mankind,  and  that  by 
him  again  man  receiveth  and  partaketh  of  these  mercies;  that 
Christ  took  upon  him  the  seed  of  Abraham,  and  his  holy  body  and 
blood  was  an  oifering  and  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world. 

"  The  people  called  Quakers  believe,  that  the  Scriptures  are 
given  by  inspiration,  and  when  rightly  interpreted,  are  uner- 
ring guides;  and  to  use  the  language  adopted  by  them,  they 
are  able  to  make  wise  unto  salvation,  through  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ.  They  believe  that  the  spirit  still  operates  upon  the  souls 
of  men,  and  when  it  does  really  and  truly  so  operate,  it  furnishes 
the  primary  rule  of  faith.  That  the  Scriptures  proceeding  from 
it  must  be  secondary  in  reference  to  this  primary  source,  whence 
they  proceed ;  but  inasmuch  as  the  dictates  of  the  spirit  are  al- 
ways true  and  uniform,  all  ideas  and  views  which  any  person 
may  entertain  repugnant  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures,  which 
are  unerring,  must  proceed  from  false  lights.  That  such  are  the 
doctrines  entertained  and  adopted  by  the  ancient  society  of 
Friends,  and  that  the  same  doctrines  are  still  entertained  by  the 
"  Orthodox"  party  aforesaid,  to  which  party  this  defendant  be- 
longs. That  these  doctrines  are  with  the  said  religious  society 
fundamental,  and  any  individual  entertaining  sentiments  and  opin- 
ions contrary  to  all  or  any  of  the  above  mentioned  doctrines,  is 
held  not  to  be  in  the  same  faith  with  the  society  of  Friends,  or 
people  called  Quakers,  and  is  treated  accordingly." 

If  this  charge  be  true,  the  "  Hicksites"  unquestionably,  are  not 
Quakers  in  religious  belief,  whatever  they  may  be  in  manners  and 
external  appearance  ;  they  are,  on  the  contrary,  the  antipodes  of 
them ;  they  are  completely  unitarian.  I  do  not  mean  to  dispute 
their  legal  right  to  be  so ;  they  are,  as  unitarians,  entitled  to  pro- 
tection in  the  enjoyment  of  their  religious  belief,  publicly  and  prac- 


32 

tically,  under  tlie  constitution  of  their  country.  All  I  mean  to 
contend  for,  is,  that  as  unitarians,  they  are  not  Quakers  in  doc- 
trine ;  they  are  not  in  law,  entitled  to  take  with  them,  in  their  new 
unitarian  belief,  the  property  which  has  been,  by  donation  or  other- 
wise, devoted,  in  trust,  for  the  society  of  Friends.  To  all  legal  pur- 
poses, they  would  have  been  just  as  much  entitled  to  it  if  they  had 
turned  mahometans :  I  contend  that  this,  as  a  rule  of  property,  is 
general  and  uniform.  If  a  unitarian  society,  where  that  mode  of 
worship  is  recognised  by  law,  should  hold  property,  a  portion  of 
the  members  becoming  trinitarian,  could  not  carry  the  property 
with  them. 

The  charge  which  I  have  just  read  from  the  answer  of  Hen- 
drickson,  was  contained  in  the  original  bill.  It  was,  of  course, 
stated  in  the  bill  of  interpleader,  and  the  defendant,  Decow,  claim- 
ing to  be  treasurer  of  the  school  fund,  under  the  "  Hicksite"  pre- 
parative meeting,  was  called  upon  to  answer  this  charge,  he  has 
not  answered  it,  but  has  refused  to  disclose.  All  the  witnesses 
called  on  the  other  side,  members  of  their  new  yearly  meeting, 
and  in  the  habit  of  attending  their  different  meetings  for  worship, 
and  hence,  fully  acquainted  with  the  religious  doctrines  they  en- 
tertain and  inculca'te,  refuse  to  disclose  upon  that  point.  The 
charge  of  unitarianism  thus  solemnly  made,  is  undenied,  either  by  , 
answer  or  by  proof. 

Allow  me,  for  a  few  moments,  to  consider  their  excuses  for  this 
concealment,  and  in  the  next  place,  its  effects  upon  the  evidence 
in  this  cause.  They  excuse  themselves  for  not  divulging  their  doc- 
trines on  the  ground,  that  they  are  not  bound  to  spread  their  spir- 
itual sentiments  before  a  temporal  tribunal;  that  such  a  tribunal  has 
no  cognizance  of  religious  doctrines,  and  that  if  compelled  to  ac- 
count upon  such  subjects,  there,  it  amounts  to  religious  persecu- 
tion. But  upon  this  subject,  they  appear  to  me,  to  be  entirely  too 
refined  and  sublimated.  They  are  for  vaulting  in  the  air.  They 
S3em  to  forget  that  even  in  religious  concerns,  while  they  are  pre- 
paring for  heaven,  they  are  upon  the  earth  and  bound  to  it,  by  a 
force  of  attraction  which  they  cannot  resist.  I  repeat  again,  that 
I  am  an  advocate  for  religious  liberty  to  its  broadest  extent,  ex- 
cept in  those  instances  where  bigotry  or  superstition  may  en- 
croach upon  the  safety  of  government,  or  the  wholesome  restraint 
of  municipal  law.     Even  there,  I  would  have  a  government  to 


33 

yield  much  to  the  spirit  of  religious  liberty.  It  is  matter  of  his- 
tory, that  the  early  Friends  were  the  pioneers  of  religious  tolera- 
tion. Even  the  early  reformers,  who  were  anxious  for  liberty  of 
thought,  were  for  stopping  short  at  the  point  to  which  their  ideas 
of  reformation  in  religious  doctrine  and  discipline  carried  them. 
Philosophers,  in  those  times,  often  dreamt  of  a  greater  latitude  of 
sentiment  and  action,  but  they  wei'e  only  the  day-dreams  of  philo- 
sophical speculation.  If  Sir  Thomas  More,  in  his  Utopia,  was  for 
allowing  the  utmost  breadth  of  religious  freedom,  he  departed  ve- 
ry essentially  from  his  principles,  when  he  was  called  upon  to  act. 
But  liberty  of  conscience,  consists  in  the  right  of  an  individual  in 
a  society,  to  enjoy  publicly  his  own  religious  views  and  mode  of 
worship,  unmolested  by  temporal  power.  This  was  so  understood 
by  the  early  Friends.  A  religious  society  must  have  property,  devo- 
ted, in  trust,  to  their  purposes,  and  to  enjoy  true  liberty  under  the 
law,  their  property  must  be  protected  by  the  law,  not  merely  as  to 
the  legal  estate,  but  also  as  to  the  trust.  How  can  the  law  pro- 
tect this  trust,  if  a  part  of  the  society,  changing  their  doctrines 
and  getting  possession  of  the  property  in  the  confusion  of  religious 
dissention,  can  wrap  themselves  up  in  all  the  darkness  of  the  Eleu- 
synian  mysteries  ?  To  receive  the  protection  of  law,  they  must 
subject  themselves  to  the  inquiry  and  investigation  necessarily  in- 
cidental to  such  protection.  True  liberty  does  not  consist  in  the 
power  of  concealment,  in  order  to  hold  property  devoted  in  trust 
to  the  support  of  one  set  of  doctrines,  and  to  misapply  it  to  the 
support  of  an  entirely  different  set  of  doctrines.  This  is  licentious- 
ness, not  liberty.  It  is  icrong,  not  right.  If  the  object  of  this  in- 
quiry was  to  punish  the  "  Hicksite  "  party  for  their  religious  opin- 
ions, they  would  then  have  an  excuse  for  this  concealment.  But 
when  the  object  is  simply  to  ascertain  which  of  these  two  divi- 
sions is  the  true  society,  when  it  is  manifest  that  both  cannot  be: 
which  of  these  two  preparative  meetings  is  the  true  preparative 
meeting,  in  order  to  settle  a  mere  question  of  property,  it  is  idle  to 
talk  of  persecution.  It  would  be  disgraceful  to  the  law,  to  leave 
such  a  question,  or  any  other  question  of  property  unsettled,  and 
in  order  to  settle  it,  the  court  must  have  the  power  of  inquiry. 

Their  next  pretence  for  refusing  to  disclose  is,  that  this  society 
has  no  fundamental  doctrines,  and  that  the  inquiry  is  immaterial, 
and  can  have  no  effect  upon  the  cause.     This  is  not  true,  and  is 

E 


34 

admitted  by  themselves  not  to  be  true ;  for  they  admit  the  doctrine 
of  the  influence  of  the  divine  Hght  upon  the  soul  to  be  fundamen- 
tal. This  society  does  not  exhibit  then,  even  according  to  their 
own  admissions  and  views,  the  strange  anomaly  of  a  christian 
community  without  any  settled  religious  principles.  It  is  true, 
that  they  deny  the  three  doctrines  in  question  to  be  fundamental ; 
but  when  we  assert  it  and  they  deny  it,  it  presents  an  issue  to  be 
inquired  into,  not  to  be  concealed.  Otherwise,  how  is  the  point  to 
be  settled?  It  surely  cannot  be  seriously  pretended  that  such 
points,  involving  important  questions  of  property,  should  be  left  un- 
settled. 

Contrast,  I  beseech  you,  the  conduct  of  the  "  Hicksite  "  party, 
with  the  proceedings  of  the  early  Friends.  These  men  live  in  an 
age  and  in  a  country,  where  i-eligious  freedom,  and  every  other 
sort  of  freedom  is  enjoyed.  Where  they  need  have  no  apprehen- 
sions from  rehgious  persecution.  They,  on  the  other  hand,  lived 
in  an  age  of  persecution,  and  were  actually  persecuted  for  the  pe- 
cuhar  religious  views  which  they  entertained  on  some  points.  Day 
after  day,  they  saw  their  companions  dragged  to  the  dungeon. 
What  course  did  they  take?  Did  they  study  to  conceal  their 
doctrines  ?  Did  they,  tortoise-like,  close  themselves  in  the  shell  ? 
Were  they  ashamed  of  the  light  ?  No.  They  came  out  boldly : 
avowed  their  doctrines  in  the  presence  of  the  crowned  heads  of 
the  day.  They  presented  themselves  before  the  parhament,  be- 
fore committees  of  the  parliament,  solemnly  and  publicly  exhibit- 
ed to  them  their  religious  views,  and  obtained  relief  and  privilege 
as  atrinitarian  community  of  christians,  under  the  toleration  laws. 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  eflect  which  this  studied  concealment  on 
the  other  side  ought  to  have,  as  negative  evidence  upon  this  cause. 
And  I  here  give  them  credit  for  sincerity  in  the  opinion,  that  they 
are  not  hound  to  disclose  their  religious  views  on  these  doctrinal 
points.  I  give  their  counsel  credit  for  sivcerity  in  advising  them 
so,  though  I  cannot  concur  in  opinion  with  them.  It  will  be  borne 
in  mind  that  they  do  not  pretend  that  their  conscience  will  not  al- 
low them  to  disclose,  only  that  they  are  not  bound  to  disclose. 
They  do,  in  fact,  disclose  some  of  their  doctrines  in  the  answer, 
and  in  the  evidence.  Why  then  do  they  not  make  a  fair  and  full 
developement  upon  these  three  doctrines  in  question  ?  Manifestly 
because  they  did  not  think  it  politic  to  do  so,     Wh}-  do  they  dis- 


35 

close  that  the  influence  of  divine  illumination  is  one  of  their  doc- 
trines ?  Manifestly  because  they  did  think  it  politic  to  go 
thus  far.  Their  conscience  then,  seems  to  be  measured  by  their 
views  of  policy. 

It  is  a  well  settled  rule  of  evidence,  that  when  a  matter  lies 
more  peculiarly  in  the  knowledge  of  one  party,  and  he  does  not 
explain  it,  every  presumption  is  raised  against  him.  In  Whitney 
against  Sterling  and  others,*  a  question  arose  whether  Brown 
was  a  partner  of  the  firm  sued.  General  reputation  was  given  in 
evidence  as  to  the  partnership,  and  as  to  the  members  of  the  firm, 
and  the  defendants  were  noticed  to  produce  the  articles  of  co- 
partnership, which  they  dechned  doing.  The  court  say,  "  this 
refusal  aflbrded  strong  grounds  of  suspicion,  that  if  produced,  they 
would  have  shewn  that  all  the  defendants  were  partners,  and  the 
jury  would  have  been  warranted  in  draw'ing  every  reasonable  in- 
ference against  the  defendants  by  reason  of  such  refusal."  To 
apply  the  principle  of  this  decision  to  the  present  case.  Here  is 
property  attached  to  a  preparative  meeting  of  Friends.  They  di- 
vide on  the  question  of  doctrine,  and  form  two  preparative  meet- 
ings. A  question  arises  w^hich  is  the  true  one,  to  which  the  pro- 
perty ought  to  be  attached.  Hendrickson  says,  his  meeting  is  the 
true  one,  because  they  hold  certain  rehgious  doctrines,  which  he 
proves  to  be  the  established  doctrines  of  that  religious  society,  and 
that  the  other  is  not  the  true  one,  because  they  hold  doctrines  di- 
rectly repugnant:  unitarian  doctrines:  that  they  have,  in  fact, 
changed  from  trinitarian  to  unitarian.  Whether  they  do  or  do 
not  hold  such  doctrines :  whether  such  change  has,  or  has  not  ta- 
ken place,  they  must  know.  They  come  forward  as  witnesses,  to 
prove  other  facts,  but  do  not  say  what"  are  their  sentiments  on 
these  points.  When  we  cross-examine  them,  they  refuse  to  an- 
swer. They  say  they  are  not  bound  to  answer.  This  is  not  true ; 
because  witnesses  should  answer  all  material  questions,  which 
will  not  subject  them  to  punishment  or  disgrace  :  but  admit  they 
were  not  bound  to  answer  these  questions.  The  defendants,  in  the 
case  cited,  were  not  bound  to  produce  the  articles  of  co-partnership, 
and  in  the  languag^e  of  that  court,  I  say,  the  refusal  of  the  "Hicksite" 
witnesses  to  answer,  aflfords  strong  ground  of  suspicion,  and  war- 
rants the  court  in  drawing  every  reasonable  inference  against  them. 

*    14  Johnson's  Reports,  215,  and  see  1  Caines  Reports,  185. 


36 

But,  fortunately,  in  this  case,  we  are  not  dependent  upon  the 
opposite  party  for  information  as  to  their  doctrines.  We  havG 
laid  before  the  court,  a  train  of  evidence,  which  shews  conclusive- 
ly that  they  do  hold  the  doctrines  we  ascribe  to  them. 

The  dispute  between  the  parties,  arose,  originally  about  doctrine. 
Decow,  in  his  answer,  admits  that  there  is  a  difference  of  doctrine 
between  them.  Whitall,  in  his  evidence,  states  the  origin  of  this 
dispute.  He  refers  to  the  letters  of  Paul  and  Amicus,  in  which  a 
pretended  Friend,  under  cover  of  vindicating  the  doctrines  of 
Quakerism,  advanced  unitarian  sentiments.  The  society  of  Friends 
became  alarmed,  lest  the  public,  under  these  circumstances,  should 
suppose  that  they  really  held  such  sentiments.  A  paper  was  pre- 
pared for  publication,  consisting  exclusively  of  extracts  from  the 
writings  of  ancient  Friends  ;*  and  setting  forth  the  doctrines  which 
are  now  maintained  by  the  "  Orthodox."  The  publication  of  it  was 
opposed:  and  opposed  too,  by  those  who  have  since  seceded. 
What  is  their  pretence  for  this  opposition  ?  Why,  that  it  was  an 
effort  to  palm  a  creed  upon  their  church.  Yet  it  is  proved  to  have 
been  the  custom,  and  is  unquestionably  true,  that  this  society  do, 
when  exposed  to  the  danger  of  misconstruction,  by  the  public,  or 
under  any  other  circumstances  rendering  it  expedient  to  do  so, 
publish  their  sentiments.  They  might  as  well  pretend  to  say,  that 
Fox,  their  founder,  was  imposing  upon  them  a  creed,  when  he 
wrote  his  letter  to  the  governor  of  Barbadoes  :  or  that  the  decla- 
ration of  their  faith  to  the  British  parliament,  was  a  creed,  and 
exceptionable  on  that  ground.  The  demon  of  persecution,  whicli 
in  this  country,  can  exist  only  in  imagination,  seems  constantly  to 
haunt  them.  The  real  secret  of  their  antipathy  to  this  paper,  was, 
not  that  it  contained  a  creed,  but  that  the  ancient  doctrines  of 
their  writers,  from  whose  works  it  was  extracted,  had  become 
unpalatable  to  them  of  late. 

The  publication  which  that  party  sent  forth  from  their  private 
meeting,  while  the  yearly  meeting  of  eighteen  hundred  and  twen- 
ty-seven was  in  session,  admits  that  a  difference  in  doctrine  led  to 
the  controversy.  They  there  tell  us,  that  doctrines  believed  by 
one  party  to  he  sound  and  edifying,  are  hy  the  other  deemed  un- 
sound and  spurious.  Thomas  Evans  testifies  that  all  their  disputes 
were  about  religious  doctrines. 

♦  Exhibit  No.  12,  in  this  cause. 


What  were  these  disputed  doctrines?  There  is  no  pretence  by 
any  body,  that  any  others  were  disputed  than  those  now  in  ques- 
tion. Our  party  come  forward  openly,  and  avow  their  sentiments, 
in  regard  to  these  disputed  doctrines.  If  one  party,  as  they  there 
admit,  beheves  certain  doctrines  sound  and  edifying,  and  the  oth- 
er beUeves  them  unsound  and  spurious,  we  have  a  right  to  infer 
from  their  own  pubhcation,  that  they  oppose  the  doctrines  in 
question,  unless  they  shew  that  there  were  other  doctrines  in  dispute 
between  them,  to  which  they  refer. 

Our  witnesses.  Parsons,  WiUiam  Jackson,  Whitall,  Willis,  all 
testify  that  the  "  Hicksite"  party  hold  the  doctrines  now  ascribed 
to  them,  and  no  one  on  their  side  denies  it. 

We  have  proved  that  their  preachers  hold  forth  the  doctrines 
that  we  ascribe  to  them.  Thomas  Evans  enumerates  some  of 
them :  Elias  Hicks,  Hawkshurst,  IMott,  Edward  Hicks,  Wetherald, 
Comly  and  Lower,  all  "  Hicksite"  preachers,  teaching  these  doc- 
trines, and  with  acceptance  and  satisfaction  to  that  party. 

We  have  several  volumes  of  their  sermons,  which  have  been 
made  exhibits  in  the  cause.  The  most  prominent  of  these  preach- 
ers, whose  sermons  are  contained  in  them,  is  Elias  Hicks.  Speak- 
ing of  the  Scriptures,  *  he  says,  "  It  is  the  best  of  all  letter  that 
was  ever  written  on  earth,  and  after  all,  it  is  nothing 
but  letter.  It  is  that  which  the  wisdom  of  man  has  devised,  and 
which  he  can  work  in,  for  the  sake  of  his  own  aggrandizement." 

f  "Now  the  book  we  read  in,  says  'search  the  Scriptures,'  but 
this  is  incorrect :  we  must  all  see  it  is  incorrect,"  &c.  It  has  been 
asserted  that  Elias  Hicks  never  disputed  the  infallibility  and  inspi- 
ration of  the  Scriptures.  Yet,  he  here  charges  them  with  inaccu- 
racy, and  with  being  devised  by  man's  wisdom.  He  has  denied 
the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  and  his  atonement.  Look  at  this  pas- 
sage :  J  "  If  we  believe  that  God  is  equal  and  righteous  in  all  his 
ways ;  that  he  has  made  of  one  blood,  all  the  families  that  dwell 
upon  the  earth,  it  is  impossible  that  he  should  be  partial,  and  there- 
fore, he  has  been  as  willing  to  reveal  his  will  to  every  creature, 
as  he  was  to  our  first  parents,  to  Moses  and  the  prophets,  to  Jesus 
Christ  and  the  apostles.  He  never  can  set  any  of  these  above  us  ; 
because,  if  he  did,  he  would  be  partial.  His  love  is  the  same  for 
all ;  and   as   no  man  can  save  his  brother,  or  give  a  ransom 

*  Hicks'  Sermons,  95,      tib.  314.     lb.  292. 


38 

for  his  soul,  therefore  the  Ahnighty  must  be  the  only  deliver- 
er of  his  people."  No  man  can  be  so  dull  of  apprehension  as 
to  misunderstand  this.  Elias  Hicks  is  at  liberty  to  believe, 
and  his  adherents  may  believe,  that  Christ  is  on  a  level  with 
Moses  and  the  prophets,  and  with  the  first  parents  of  mankind, 
and  that  he  is  not  set  above  us :  that  not  he,  but  the  Almighty 
alone,  is  the  true  deliverer.  I  come  to  the  bar  of  this  court,  not 
to  censure  them  or  their  doctrines,  but  as  the  advocate  of  my  cli- 
ents, upon  this  question  of  property,  I  say,  and  I  trust  I  have 
proved,  that  these  are  not  the  doctrines  of  Quakerism.*  Whether 
these  printed  books  of  sermons,  have  ever  been  formally  adopted 
by  the  yearly  meeting  of  the  *'  Hicksites,"  I  cannot  pretend  to  say. 
But  we  do  not  give  them  in  evidence  as  the  productions  of  pri- 
vate individuals,  which  might  require  such  adoption,  to  render 
them  evidence  of  the  general  sentiments  of  the  society.  They 
are  collections  of  sermons,  of  public  pi-eacJiers,  holding  forth  these 
sentiments  among  them,  without  censure,  and  with  acceptance. 
If  they  had  found  fault  with  these  sentiments,  it  would  have  been 
the  duty  of  their  elders  to  inquire  into  the  matter.  The 
public  and  acceptable  preaching  of  their  ministers,  may  surely  be 
taken  as  fair  evidence  of  the  religious  sentiments  of  their  people. 

But  Elias  Hicks  is  too  conspicuous  a  character  to  be  hastily 
passed  over.  He  is  their  prime  mover.  This  is  notorious.  His 
station  as  such,  is  just  as  well  defined,  as  that  of  Luther  or  Calvin, 
Zwingle  or  Fox.  They  say,  to  be  sure,  that  he  is  not  their  head; 
because  they  consider  Christ  their  head.  But  that  he  is  a  most 
able  coadjutor,  and  that  he  took  the  lead  in  broaching  those  doc- 
trines, in  respect  to  which  they  admit  they  differ  from  their  for- 
mer associates,  they  cannot  pretend  to  deny.  Abraham  Lower 
acknowledges  in  his  evidence,  that  he  was  a  faithful  and  accept- 
ed preacher.  In  the  early  part  of  his  career,  as  a  unitarian 
preacher,  he  wrote  a  letter  to  his  friend  Thomas  Willis,  and  made 
an  exhibit  in  this  cause.  This  letter  is  written  with  an  ingenuity 
and  management  which  would  have  done  no  discredit  to  the  ora- 
torical skill  of  Demosthenes  or  Cicero.    He  commences  by  stating, 

*  Mr.  Wood  licrc  read  a  number  of  passages  from  tlie  sermons  of  Elias  and 
Edwarrl  Hifks.  and  Thomas  Wetherald,  from  the  printed  volumes  called  the 
"Quaker,"'  Hicks' Sermons,  and  the  sermons  of  Elias  and  Edward  Hicks,  to  prove 
tiic  same  points. 


39 

that  for  fifty  years  and  upwards,  he  has  beheved  in  the  miracu- 
lous conception.  But  he  had  lately  been  examining  the  ancient 
history  of  the  church,  and  found  that  many  thought  otherwise. 
Before  this,  he  had  read  the  Scriptures  often,  but  under  the  preju- 
dice of  a  traditional  belief,  and  therefore,  never  doubted  it.  But 
since  his  late  examination  of  ancient  history,  where  he,  no  doubt, 
had  dipped  into  the  arian  controversy,  he  read  the  Scriptures 
again,  and  ahhough  he  found  there  was  considerably  more  scrip- 
tural evidence  for  his  being  the  son  of  Joseph  than  otherwise  ;  still 
it  has  not  changed  his  belief;  as  tradition  is  a  mighty  bulwark. 
Strange !  The  less  evidence  prevails  over  the  greater !  And  why  ? 
The  prejudice  of  tradition  is  too  strong  for  him.  I  have  heard  of 
men  being  under  the  influence  of  prejudice ;  but  when  they  dis- 
cover the  prejudice,  and  see  the  preponderating  evidence  on  the 
other  side,  there  is  an  end  of  it ;  they  are  then  freed  from  their  shac- 
kles. But  it  would  not  do  for  him  to  come  out  boldly  as  a  unita- 
rian— it  would  have  aroused  his  friend.  To  continue  his  influ- 
ence, he  still  professes  his  old  doctrines,  and  he  endeavors  to  in- 
stil his  principles  indirectly,  that  his  friend  may  adopt  them  as  his 
own,  and  as  not  appearing  to  have  taken  them  from  him.  In  his  let- 
ters to  Phoebe  Willis,  and  Dr.  Shoemaker,  he  denies  the  atonement 
most  unequivocally.  These  letters  are  important  in  two  points  of 
view.  While  they  develope  the  principles  of  Elias  Hicks,  they 
show  that  these  are  not  the  principles  of  Quakerism  in  which  he 
had  been  educated. 

A  slight  examination  of  his  sermons,  will  show  you  that  he  is  a 
visionary  man.  With  a  mind  more  active  than  judicious,  he  is 
constantly  striking  out  new  conceits.  With  a  temperament  more 
elastic  than  firm,  he  embodies  these  conceits  to  his  own  satisfac- 
tion, with  all  the  reality  of  solid  doctrine.  Christ,  in  his  opinion, 
as  far  as  we  can  collect  his  opinion,  was  a  man  inspired  with  the 
same  light  with  which  all  other  men  are  inspired,  who  may,  if 
they  choose,  rise  to  an  equality  with  him.  Neither  He,  nor  Mo- 
ses, nor  any  of  the  prophets,  was  above  us.  That  would  have 
been  partial  and  unjust  in  his  opinion.  Christ  was  a  saviour,  but 
he  was  only  to  save  the  Israelites  by  healing  their  diseases.  His 
atonement  was  of  the  same  healing  character,  but  to  the  Jews 
only.  The  Scriptures  are  useful  though  incorrect ;  but  they  are 
only  useful  as  props  in  the  infancy  of  spiritual  being,  which  must 


40 

soon  be  brushed  away,  or  they  will  destroy  that  spirituality. 
Among  other  things,  he  has  made  the  discovery,  that  spirit  can 
only  beget  spirit.  He  does  not  tell  us,  however,  in  what  way  he 
discovered,  that  spirit  could  even  beget  spirit.  It  does  not  seem, 
for  a  moment,  to  occur  to  him,  that  such  subjects  are  beyond  hu- 
man comprehension  and  inquiry,  and  that  man  becomes  presump- 
tuous when  he  undertakes  to  be  wise  in  such  matters  beyond 
what  is  revealed.  His  imagination  has  only  to  coin  an  idea,  and 
his  zeal  at  once  gives  it  currency.  I  have  no  doubt,  that  in  pri- 
vate life,  his  character  was  amiable  and  unexceptionable.  But 
his  virtues,  like  Caesar's,  have  been  instrumental  to  a  successful  in- 
novation. Coming  out,  heated,  from  the  steam  of  the  arian  con- 
troversy he  has  cast  a  firebrand  into  this  heretofore  peaceful  socie- 
ty, and  spread  a  devastation,  which  a  hundred  such  men  could 
not  repair. 

Let  me  not  be  understood,  as  meaning  to  censure  Elias  Hicks 
for  his  religious  opinions.  His  right  to  hold  them,  was  a  matter, 
which  lay  between  his  conscience  and  his  God.  It  is  his  deport- 
ment towards  this  society  in  the  practical  assertion  of  those  reli- 
gious opinions,  formed  by  him  in  his  declining  years,  of  which,  as 
the  advocate  of  my  clients,  it  is  my  duty  to  complain.  The 
course  which  Elias  Hicks  ought  to  have  taken,  was  a  very  obvi- 
ous one  ;  the  road  he  had  to  travel,  was  direct  and  plain  before  him. 
When  he  adopted  and  undertook  to  preach  those  new  doctrines, 
which  he  thus  shadowed  forth  in  his  epistles  to  his  friends,  and 
which,  in  those  epistles,  he  distinctly  admits,  are  in  violation  of  the 
principles  of  Quakerism,  and  the  traditions  in  which  he  had  been 
educated,  he  ought  to  have  come  out  from  the  bosom  of  that  so- 
ciety. He  might  then  have  openly  avowed  his  doctrines,  and 
made  proselytes  to  his  new  system — the  desire  to  do  which,  is  so 
natural  to  the  mind  of  man.  If,  by  pursuing  this  open  and  man- 
ly course,  he  had  gathered  around  him  a  new  sect,  it  would  have 
been  fair  and  lawful,  and  no  man  would  have  had  a  right  to  com- 
plain, how  much  soever  his  early  associates,  who  should  still  ad- 
here to  the  traditions  in  which  they  had  been  educated,  might 
Jiave  lamented  his  course.  He  would  then  have  enjoyed  full 
freedom  of  thought  and  action,  without  encroaching  upon  the  just 
rights  of  a  religious  society,  whose  principles  he  had  abandoned. 
But  whenever  a  member  of  such  a  society  changes  his  religious 


41 

opinions,  and  still  artfully  endeavours  to  continue  in  it,  for  the 
purpose  of  more  eifectually  making  converts  to  his  new  doctrines, 
the  error  of  his  course  will  be  shown  in  the  demoralizing  con- 
sequences flowing  from  it.  What  subterfuges  and  evasions  is 
he  obliged  to  resort  to  !  What  shifts  and  expedients  !  Some- 
times boldly  advancing  his  views  among  those  who  have  become 
prepared  to  receive  them.  Sometimes  denouncing  them  and 
broaching  the  old  doctrines  in  which  he  had  been  educated. 
Sometimes  explaining  them  away,  or  endeavouring  to  reconcile 
contradictions!!  Detraction  and  discord  are  next  witnessed. 
The  old  become  disgusted  Avith  the  exhibition  :  the  young  ridi- 
cule the  whole  as  the  offspring  of  hypocrisy,  artifice,  and  self- 
interest  :  a  prostration  of  morality  and  religion  follows  in  the 
train.  In  religious  matters,  as  in  every  thing  else,  licentiousness, 
which  is  nothing  else  than  a  spirit  of  encroachment  under  the 
specious  name  of  liberty,  is  prejudicial  to  the  rights  and  inter- 
ests of  mankind. 

Having  finished  last  evening  what  I  had  to  say  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  the  departure  by  the  "  Hicksites"  from  the  fundamental 
rehgious  doctrines  of  the  society  of  Friends,  I  shall  now  proceed 
to  show  that  they  have  seceded  from  the  rule  and  government 
of  the  church. 

They  charge  upon  our  party,  a  violation  of  the  discipline  in 
commencing  this  suit.  It  is  in  evidence  that  Thomas  L.  Shotwell, 
the  defendant  to  our  bill,  was  not  a  member  of  the  society  at 
the  time  of  the  secession.  If  he  has  since  the  secession  been 
admitted  into  their  church,  we  have  not  in  thus  instituting  the 
suit  violated  the  principles  of  this  society,  because  as  we  say  they 
are  not,  as  unitarians,  in  the  same  faith  with  the  society  of 
Friends.  There  was  no  other  mode  of  getting  redress.  Having 
withdrawn  themselves  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  regular  yearly 
meeting  of  Philadelphia,  and  all  the  subordinate  meetings  of  dis- 
cipline, it  was  vain  to  seek  redress  there  against  Shotwell,  for 
he  of  course  would  not  submit  to  their  authority.  Could  he 
expect  us  to  follow  him  into  their  new  and  irregular  meetings  ? 
meetings  originating,  as  they  admit,  in  a  revolution,  and  which 
we  do  not  recognize  ?  Their  complaints  then  are  founded  on 
principles  of  most  convenient  application,  for  themselves,  inas- 
much as  they  would  close  the  door  against  all  redress. 


43 

There  are  some  other  pretensions  set  up  on  the  other  side, 
incidental  to  this  question  of  secession. 

They  tell  us  that  there  is  no  head  to  this  church  upon  earth 
— no  subordination — no  control  of  one  meeting  over  another — 
that  each  preparative  meeting  may  act  for  itself,  without  respon- 
sibility to  the  others,  or  to  any  superior  meeting.  Such  a  state 
of  things  is  designated  under  the  captivating  name  of  a  pure 
democracy.  They  figure  to  themselves  a  golden  age  of  religious 
liberty. 

I  see  nothing  of  democracy  in  this.  Democracy  admits  of  re- 
gular organization,  of  a  due  subordination  of  parts  to  the  whole. 
It  admits  of  authority  to  govern,  founded  in  the  good  of  the 
whole.  It  admits  of  subjection,  provided  it  be  subjection  to  the 
law  and  wholesome  discipline  of  society.  But  the  pretensions 
set  up  on  the  other  side,  are  of  an  entirely  ditTerent  character. 
They  pretend  that  any  preparative  meeting  with  a  bare  majo- 
rity, told  by  the  head,  composed  of  the  young,  the  thoughtless, 
and  inexperienced,  whose  only  claims  to  religious  or  even  moral 
consideration,  may  be  founded  on  birth-right,  are  at  liberty  at 
any  time  to  set  up  for  themselves,  dissolve  all  connection  with 
the  yearly  meeting,  and  carry  the  property  along  with  them. 
It  might  as  well  be  said,  that  a  county  could  at  any  moment  de- 
tach itself  from  the  state.  This  I  consider  not  democracy  but 
rank  jacobinism.  If  Quakers  were  to  act  on  such  principles, 
they  would  be  the  sansculottes  of  Christianity. 

Having  been  informed  that  the  Quakers  have  no  iixed  reli- 
gious principles,  we  are  told  in  the  next  place,  that  they  have 
no  subordination  or  settled  rules  of  government,  and  that  the 
whole  body  may  at  any  time,  legitimately  crumble  into  its  original 
moleculae. 

But  we  have  clearly  shewn  in  this  case,  that  the  seeds  of  dis- 
cord, are  not  thus  sown  in  the  institutions  of  this  society.  On 
the  contrary,  they  have  a  system  of  law  and  subordination,  and 
a  regular  gradation  of  authority.  This  is  so  stated  in  the  an- 
swer of  Hendrickson,  and  is  proved  by  his  witnesses.  They  testify 
to  a  power  in  the  higher  meetings  to  lay  down  the  lower  meet- 
ings. The  accountability  of  the  lower  to  the  higher  meetings  is 
provided  for  in  the  book  of  discipline.  Joseph  Whitall  in  his 
deposition,  cites  passages  from  the  English  Discipline  of  similar 


43 

import.  John  Gummere  states  various  instances  where  meetings 
had  been  thus  laid  down  by  the  Burlington  Quarterly  Meeting, 
and  Abraham  Lower,  their  witness,  admits  this  subordination 
and  their  subjection  to  the  rules  of  their  discipline  enacted  in  the 
yearly  meeting. 

There  is  then  a  due  subordination  and  subjection  to  rule,  in 
this  society.  The  highest  tribunal  is  the  yearly  meeting,  which 
exercises  a  general  supervisory  control  over  the  whole,  complete- 
ly analogous  to  the  controlling  and  superintending  power  of  the 
general  synods  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Churches,  and  the  general 
assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  opposite  party  further  pretend  that  they  are  justified  in 
the  course  they  have  taken,  on  account  of  the  arbitrary  conduct 
of  the  orthodox,  upon  the  right  of  revolution.  Their  grievances 
resemble  in  their  opinion,  those  of  the  patriots  of  our  great  revo- 
lution. They  are  the  whigs  of  Quakerism.  This  is  a  most  ex- 
traordinary ground  for  individuals  to  take,  who  live  under  a  gov- 
ernment of  laws,  which  is  able  and  willing  to  protect  them  if  they 
are  aggrieved. 

But  these  complaints  are  unfounded  in  fact.  None  existed  un- 
til these  false  doctrines  were  broached.  They  commenced  with 
the  preparation  of  the  paper  which  they  have  called  a  creed, 
which  I  have  already  considered  and  which  they  could  seriously 
object  to,  only  on  the  ground  that  it  opposed  the  unitarian  doc- 
trines of  Amicus,  doctrines  which  were  put  forth  about  the  time 
that  Elias  Hicks  began  to  shake  off  the  tradition  in  which  he  had 
been  brought  up,  the  mighty  bulwark,  as  he  terms  it,  and  com- 
menced his  new  career  as  a  unitarian  preacher.  Their  next 
complaint  of  arbitrary  conduct  is  levelled  against  the  elders  in 
Philadelphia.  Here  again  we  trace  the  source  of  this  irritation 
to  the  new  doctrines.  Before  this,  all  was  peace  and  harmony. 
But  Elias  Hicks  was  spreading  his  new  unitarian  lights  among 
the  churches  of  Philadelphia.  The  elders  felt  it  their  duty  to 
interpose.  If  false  doctrines  are  disseminated,  will  it  be  pretend- 
ed that  they  are  to  lie  idle,  and  not  endeavour  to  arrest  them? 
The  elders  have  a  special  superintendance  over  their  meetings. 
Willit  be  pretended,  that  clothed  as  they  are  with  this  superinten- 
ding power,  that  standing  upon  the  watch  towers  to  give  alarm, 
when  there  is  cause  of  alarm,  they  ought  to  connive  at  the  cor- 


44 

ruption  of  their  churches  by  the  promulgation  of  unsound  doc- 
trines ?  Suppose  a  preacher  should  go  about  among  them,  and 
deny  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  influence  of  the  divine  light 
upon  the  soul,  should  this  be  acquiesced  in  1  It  is  the  same  in  ef- 
fect when  any  other  fundamental  doctrine  is  denied. 

Their  next  complaint  is  on  the  ground  that  committees  were 
appointed  to  go  down  among  the  churches  and  endeavour  to 
stem  the  current  of  these  new  doctrines.  Halliday  Jackson  him- 
self admits  the  practice  of  appointing  such  committees,  when 
there  is  a  serious  departure  in  doctrine  or  discipline  which  may 
call  for  it,  but  he  thinks  it  was  not  justifiable  in  this  instance, 
because  there  were  parties  in  the  church.  Now  I  submit  to  the 
court,  that  I  have  already  shewn  that  false  doctrines  were  afloat, 
in  regard  to  Quakerism,  upon  points  radical  and  fundamental, 
and  if  so,  the  appointment  of  these  committees  was  perfectly  jus- 
tifiable, nay  farther,  it  was  absolutely  incumbent  upon  them 
to  make  the  appointment. 

Their  only  remaining  topic  of  complaint  relates  to  the  choice 
of  a  clerk,  at  the  yearly  meeting  of  eighteen  hundred  and  twenty- 
seven.  Their  candidate  for  the  clerkship  on  that  occasion  was 
John  Comly,  a  man  who  had  been  busy  for  months  before,  hold- 
ing private  meetings,  with  the  express  view  of  preparing  the 
minds  of  all  who  were  on  their  side  for  a  dissolution  of  the  socie- 
ty. Among  others,  Halliday  Jackson  is  compelled  to  admit  this, 
and  his  excuse  for  this  conduct  on  the  part  of  his  friend,  is  found- 
ed upon  this  right  of  revolution.  With  a  candidate  of  such  pre- 
tensions aild  with  such  views  they  came  forward,  and  they  cer- 
tainly could  not  be  surprized  that  the  friends  of  this  religious 
institution,  the  adherents  to  the  faith  of  their  fathers,  who  had 
been  stemming  the  torrent  of  innovation,  shoidd  endeavour  still  to 
resist  its  progress  and  prevent  it  from  overwhelming  Ihem. 

It  is  proved  by  Samuel  Bettle  that  the  old  clerk  acts,  accord- 
ing to  their  established  usage,  until  a  new  one  is  appointed.  No 
election  in  this  case  was  made ;  the  meeting  could  not  agree  in 
the  choice  of  a  clerk.  The  representatives  had  deliberated  upon 
the  subject,  and  no  agreement  could  be  made.  What  then  was 
to  be  done?  If  they  could  not  agree  in  the  choice  of  a  new 
clerk,  all  that  remained  was  to  acquiesce  and  submit  to  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  old  one  until  a  new  clerk  should  be  appointed. 


45 

But  a  serious  objection  is  here  interposed  on  the  part  of  the 
"  Hicksites."  They  say  they  had  a  majority  in  their  favour. 
This,  however,  does  not  appear.  The  votes  were  not  counted, 
and  it  is  all  mere  conjecture. 

But  however  that  may  be,  it  is,  I  think,  well  settled,  that  this 
society  in  its  proceedings,  does  not  vote  or  decide  by  majorities. 
It  is  so  alleged  by  Hendrickson  in  his  answer,  and  his  witnesses 
prove  it.  Charles  Stokes,  their  own  witness,  in  his  deposition 
gives  a  very  clear  and  full  view  of  this  subject,  and  refers  you 
to  Barclay,  who  states  the  practice  of  the  society.  The  sense 
of  the  meeting  is  gathered  by  the  clerk,  of  course  a  weighty  and 
responsible  officer;  and  in  doing  so,  no  doubt,  he  attaches  im- 
portance to  numerical  strength,  but  it  is  not  the  only,  nor  the 
principal  criterion.  The  history  of  Quakerism,  may  be  studied 
in  its  details  with  advantage.  This  society  has  existed  for  ages, 
has  transacted  business  of  every  kind,  settled  the  disputes  and 
controversies  of  its  own  members,  without  suffering  them  to  re- 
sort to  courts  of  justice,  yet  in  all  its  deliberations,  religious  and 
secular,  no  decision  has  ever  been  made  by  taking  a  vote  or  by 
counting  the  members.  Their  decisions  are  made  in  unity  ;  but 
by  this  they  do  not  understand  unanimity  or  majority.  They 
designate  their  decision  generally  by  calling  it  the  prevailing 
sense  of  the  meeting.  The  officer  to  collect  this  prevailing  sense, 
is  the  clerk,  who  is  clothed  with  great  responsibility.  The  de- 
cision does  not,  says  Barclay,  rest  with  the  few  or  the  many. 
Age,  experience,  intelligence,  weight  of  religious  character,  fur- 
nish considerations  of  importance  in  determining  the  sense  of  the 
community.  If  too  much  heat  should  be  found  entering  into 
their  deliberations,  they  wait  until  the  tumult  and  agitation  of 
the  mind  shall  subside — until  the  passions  shall  be  hushed  under 
the  influence  of  religious  impression.  In  such  a  frame  of  mind, 
the  pride  of  opinion  is  subdued,  a  proper  regard  is  paid  to  reli- 
gious intelligence  and  experience,  and  a  silent  and  harmonious 
acquiescence  is  the  result.  What  self-command,  what  discipline 
of  the  mind  and  heart,  are  required  for  the  introduction  of  such 
a  principle  of  action,  and  how  far  superior  is  it  to  decision  by 
majorities,  where  the  state  of  society  is  so  far  improved,  and  the 
passions  are  so  far  controlled  as  to  warrant  its  introduction.  It 
is  said  in  the  answer  of  Hendrickson,  and  is  said  truly,  that  one 


46 

of  the  most  prominent  features  in  the  "  Hicksite"  innovation,  is 
the  attempt  to  break  down  this  distinguishing  principle  of  deci- 
sion which  has  so  long  prevailed  in  their  society,  with  so  much 
usefulness,  and  in  its  tendency  to  disqualify  them  for  its  use. 

We  become  so  familiarized  with  the  artificial  regulations  of 
society,  as  to  mistake  them  for  the  paramount  rules  of  action 
prescribed  by  nature.  Those  who  look  only  at  the  surface  of 
society,  are  apt  to  imagine  that  all  proceedings  that  are  counter 
to  the  movements  they  have  been  accustomed  to  witness,  must 
be  absolutely  unjust.  The  superior  influence  which  would  direct 
the  actions  of  men  associated  together,  in  the  absence  of  positive 
rule,  would  be  the  combined  result  of  superior  moral  and  physi- 
cal power.  In  most  of  the  institutions  of  society,  majorities  re- 
gulate their  decision,  because  it  furnishes  a  convenient  rule  ;  but 
this  rule  is  often  departed  from,  and  would  often  be  unjust.  In 
banks  and  other  institutions  where  property  is  the  main  concern, 
it  gives  way  to  property  ;  sometimes  a  concurrence  of  two-thirds 
or  of  three-fourths  is  required. 

In  religious  societies  the  promotion  of  religion  is  of  course  the 
grand  object  in  view  Their  rules  of  proceeding  should  be 
adapted  to  that  object.  Surely  there  is  nothing  unjust  in  requir- 
ing that  mere  numerical  strength  should  give  way  to  religious 
weight  and  experience,  in  a  religious  society  where  birth-right 
prevails,  and  more  especially  when  the  beneficial  efTects  of  this 
course  of  proceeding  have  been  experienced  through  a  series  of 
ages. 

But  the  "Hicksite"  partv  true  to  their  purpose  of  introducing 
novelties,  resolved  to  carry  their  ends  by  introducing  among  them 
the  new  and  extraordinary  principle  of  deciding  by  majorities. 
As  preparatory  to  its  introduction  into  this  yearly  meeting,  they 
doubled  their  number  of  representatives  in  those  quarters  in 
which  they  had  the  predominancy,  and  for  the  great  work  of  in- 
troducing a  notorious  disorganizer  into  the  most  responsible 
office  among  them.  Their  courage  however  failed  them ;  they 
could  not  act  up  to  their  new  purpose.  The  innovation  would 
have  been  too  glaring.  Not  an  attempt  was  made  in  that  meet- 
ing to  count  the  votes.  Amidst  the  agitation  and  bustle  of  the 
scene,  John  Cox,  the  respectable  old  man  who  is  spoken  of  with 
so  much  approbation  by  the  witnesses  on  both  sides,  reported, — 


47 

what  ?  That  he  could  not  count  the  majority  ?  Nothing  like  it — 
lie  did  not  dream  off  ascertaining  majority  or  minority.  But 
he  could  not  gather  the  sense  of  the  meeting.  The  spirit  of  inno- 
vation and  discord  threw  all  into  confusion.  The  "  Hicksites" 
eventually  abandoned  this  effort.  They  acted  wisely  in  not  per- 
sisting in  their  endeavour  to  palm  a  disorganizer  upon  the  yearly 
meeting  as  their  clerk.  The,  old  clerk  took  his  seat.  Comly 
took  his  seat  as  assistant  clerk,  and  they  proceeded  to  business. 
The  yearly  meeting  became  fully  organized.  Among  other 
things  they  passed  a  resolution  for  raising  money  for  the  libera- 
tion of  some  slaves.  This  acquiescence  however  secured  tran- 
quility but  for  a  short  time.  It  was  like  the  calm  which  pre- 
cedes the  storm.  The  fires  of  discord  were  allayed  but  they 
were  not  quenched.  They  were  smouldering  under  ground. 
While  this  yearly  meeting  was  engaged  in  the  business  of  the  so- 
ciety, the  "  Hicksite"  party  held  secret  meetings  of  their  own 
apart,  in  which  they  were  preparing  the  work  of  disorganization, 
and  at  which  Comly  the  assistant  clerk  attended.  Dr.  Gibbons, 
the  editor  of  the  Berean,  was  there.  They  resulted  in  the  issuing 
of  a  publication  addressed  to  the  members  of  their  party,  in  which 
they  state,  "  We  feel  bound  to  express  to  you  under  a  settled  con- 
viction of  mind,  that  the  period  has  fully  come  in  which  we  ought 
to  look  towards  making  a  quiet  retreat  from  this  scene  of  confu- 
sion, and  we  therefore  recommend  to  you  deeply  to  weigh  the 
momentous  subject,  and  to  adopt  such  a  course  as  truth,  under 
solid  and  solemn  deliberation,  may  point  to,  in  furtherance  of  this 
object,"  &c.  They  invite  a  convention  to  be  composed  of  "  their 
memhers,'^  with  a  view  to  organize  themselves  anew,  and  by 
means  of  this  new  organization,  to  consummate  their  purpose  of 
making  a  quiet  retreat. 

That  purpose  was  consummated.  That  quiet  retreat,  or  at 
least  that  retreat,  was  fully  effected.  Jn  June  eighteen  hundred 
and  twenty  seven,  that  party  held  a  convention  which  brought 
forth  another  address,  but  directed  specially  to  their  own  mem- 
bers. In  this  address  they  speak  of  the  blessed  influence  of  gos- 
pel love  and  insinuate  an  abandonment  by  the  opposite  party  of 
this  fundamental  principle  of  their  union,  as  they  term  it.  So 
it  seems,  they  have  fundamental  principles,  or  in  other  words,  ac- 
cording to  their  notions  of  fundamental  principles,  a  creed.     And 


48 

they  conclude  this  address  with  saying,  "We  therefore  under  a 
solemn  and  weighty  sense  of  the  importance  of  this  concern,  and 
vvith  ardent  desires,  that  all  our  movements  may  be  under  the 
guidance  of  him  who  only  can  lead  us  in  safety,  have  agreed  to 
propose  for  your  consideration  the  propriety  and  expediency  of 
holding  a  yearly  meeting  for  friends  in  unity  with  us,  residing 
within  the  limits  of  those  quarterly  meetings  heretofore  present- 
ed in  the  yearly  nieetingheld  in  Philadelphia,  for  which  purpose 
it  is  recommended  that  quarterly  and  monthly  meetings  which 
may  be  prepared  for  such  a  measure,  should  appoint  representa- 
tives to  meet  in  Philadelphia  on  the  third  second  day  in  tenth 
month  next,  at  ten  o'clock  in  the  morning,  in  company  with  other 
members  favourable  to  our  views  there  to  hold  a  yearly  meeting 
of  men  and  women  friends,"  &lc. 

This  passage  in  their  address  suggests  several  remarks  for 
your  consideration.  It  will  be  borne  in  mind,  that  this  "  Hicks- 
ite"  party  did  not  pretend  to  disown  or  exclude  the  "  Orthodox" 
from  membership.  They  complain  that  the  "  Orthodox"  were  too 
restricted  in  their  views  of  doctrine.  They  do  not  pretend  to 
assert  that  persons  entertaining  their  views  of  religion  are  not 
Quakers,  but  they  contend  for  a  broader  latitude.  They  are 
for  adopting  a  principle  to  regulate  membership  which  will 
embrace  trinitarians,  unitarians,  or  even  pagan  philosophers 
For  it  is  well  known  that  the  platonic  sect  of  pagan  philosophers, 
did  believe  in  divine  illumination.  In  short,  Quakerism,  ac- 
cording to  their  views,  would  resemble  the  tesselated  pavement 
to  which  the  earl  of  Chatham's  celebrated  cabinet  has  been 
compared.  Abraham  Lower  admits  that  they  did  not  pretend 
to  disown  the  orthodox.  The  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia  in 
1827,  continued  its  sittings,  and  was  regularly  adjourned  to  meet 
the  ensuing  year  as  the  discipline  prescribes,  and  they  did 
accordingly  meet  the  ensuing  year,  and  have  continued  to  meet 
regularly  ever  since.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  "  Hicksite" 
address,  which  I  last  referred  to,  is  directed  specially  to 
Friends  in  unity  with  themselves,  who  are  prepared  for  their 
measures,  and  favourable  to  their  views.  Its  object  was  not  to 
call  a  convention  composed  of  a  delegation  from  the  whole  body 
of  the  members  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  yearly  meeting, 
but  only  a  part  of  that  body.     A  convention  then  composed  of  a 


49 

party,  met  together  in  October  1827,  and  formed  a  new  yearly 
meeting,  which  according  to  their  adoption,  has  met  subsequently 
at  Philadelphia,  yearly,  a  week  sooner  than  the  old  yearly  meet- 
ing, which  continues  to  assemble  at  the  usual  time  and  place.  They 
call  this  new  yearly  meeting  a  reorganization  of  the  old  one  ;  a 
revival  upon  its  pristine  principles;  a  sort  ofphcenix  rising  from 
the  ashes.  But  the  old  phoenix  remains  alive.  The  old  yearly 
meeting  continues  in  full  operation.  There  are  two  radical  ob- 
jections to  their  effort  to  identify  their  new  yearly  meeting  with 
the  old  yearly  meeting.  In  the  first  place  their  new  yearly 
meeting  is  the  offspring  of  a  party,  and  not  of  the  whole  body. 
There  was  no  notification  to  the  whole  body  to  attend  the  con- 
ventions which  formed  it.  The  proceedings  of  the  meeting  of  a 
corporation  are  not  valid,  unless  there  was  a  general  notice  to 
the  whole  body  composing  that  meeting  to  attend.  In  the  next 
place  according  to  the  rules  and  government  of  this  church,  no 
new  yearly  meeting  could  be  formed  within  the  precincts  of  the 
old  one  without  their  concurrence,  and  of  course  no  new  yearly 
meeting  without  such  concurrence  could  be  formed  to  supercede 
the  old  one.  If  we  can  place  any  confidence  in  the  evidence,  no 
yearly  meeting  ever  has  been  formed  within  the  bounds  of  an 
old  yearly  meeting  without  their  concurrence. 

The  opposite  party  will  derive  no  aid  from  adverting  to  the 
circumstances  under  which  this  old  yearly  meeting  was  origi- 
nally formed  in  this  country.  The  members  of  the  society  who 
originally  organized  this  yearly  meeting  at  Burlington,  found 
themselves  in  a  new  position.  They  were  not  within  the  bounds 
of  any  yearly  meeting:  they  therefore  acted  for  themselves,  in 
the  same  way  as  the  early  Friends  proceeded  in  forming  the  first 
yearly  meeting  in  London.  But  they  bore  in  mind,  notwith- 
standing, the  general  connection  of  all  the  parts  of  this  religious 
society,  by  which  they  are  identified  in  some  measure  as  a 
whole.  They  advised  the  yearly  meeting  of  London  of  their 
proceedings,  and  obtained  their  approbation :  and  considering 
the  colonial  condition  of  their  new  country,  they  became  in  some 
degree  subordinate  to  that  ancient  yearly  meeting,  and  appeals 
to  it  were  allowed,  and  an  appellate  jurisdiction  was  actually 
exercised.  Ever  since  this  country  has  been  freed  from  its  de- 
pendence upon  the  British  crown,  an  advisory  correspondence 


50 

has  been  kept  up  with  them  by  the  yearly  meetings  of  thiscomi- 
try.  What  analogy  can  a  friend  to  order  see  between  the  pro- 
ceedings by  which  this  yearly  meeting  was  originally  formed  at 
Burlington,  and  the  proceedings  which  eventuated  in  the  crea- 
tion of  this  "  Hicksite"  yearly  meeting  ?  If  a  party  may  rise  up 
in  a  church,  hold  private  meatings,  issue  addresses  to  their 
own  party,  and  thus  form  a  party-convention  with  full  power 
legitimately  to  create  a  new  yearly  meeting,  there  is  an  end  to 
all  order,  to  all  rule,  and  to  all  regular  organization  of  society. 
But  they  go  still  farther  than  this,  and  pretend  that  this  new 
yearly  meeting  of  their  own,  fostered  and  matured  in  the  hot-bed 
of  party-spirit,  has  completely  superseded  the  old  yearly  meeting 
which  still  continues  in  operation,  and  has  legitimately  usurped 
and  succeeded  to  all  its  rights. 

I  will  not  trouble  the  court  with  going  into  the  details  of  the 
circumstances  attending  the  separation  in  the  Burlington  quarter 
and  the  preparative  meeting  at  Crosswicks.  The  proceedings  in 
the  Burhngton  quarter  are  detailed  by  Gummere,  and  in  the 
meeting  at  Crosswicks  by  Craft  and  Emlen.  In  both  cases,  in- 
dividuals intruded  themselves  into  the  meetings,  who  did  not  be- 
long to  the  society  of  Friends.  By  the  principles  of  their  society, 
no  person  can  be  present  at  their  meetings  of  business,  who  is 
not  a  member ;  vvhether  he  has  never  belonged,  or  whether  he 
has  formerly  belonged  to  their  society,  and  been  disowned.  Un- 
willing to  use  force,  but  disposed  to  act  in  the  spirit  of  peace,  if 
any  persons  thus  present  should  refuse  to  withdraw,  the  meeting 
must  either  cease  to  transact  their  business,  or  adjourn  to  some 
other  place.  The  monthly  meeting  at  Crosswicks  and  the  Bur- 
lington quarter  took  the  latter  alternative,  and  adjourned  to  a 
neighbouring  house,  and  took  their  minutes  and  papers,  and  their 
clerks  with  them.  They  did  not  privately  meet  in  convention 
and  form  new  meetings,  but  regularly  adjourned  their  meetings 
to  different  places.  In  the  mean  time,  the  "  Hicksite"  parties 
who  were  connected  with  the  persons  who  thus  intruded,  took 
possession  of  the  meeting  houses,  chose  new  clerks  of  their  own, 
organized  themselves  into  monthly  and  quarterly  meetings,  and 
have  placed  themselves  under  the  jurisdiction  of  this  new  yearly 
meeting,  formed  in  convention  by  the  "  Hicksites"  in  the  city  of 
Philadelphia.  The  "Orthodox"  Burlington  quarterly  meeting,  and 


51 

their  monthly  and  preparative  meeting  at  Crosswicks,  still  con- 
tinue under  the  jurisdiction  and  control  of  the  old  yearly  meeting 
of  Philadelphia.  Thus  David  Clark  was  long  before  the  seces- 
sion, and  still  is,  the  clerk  of  the  "  Orthodox"  monthly  meeting  at 
Crosswicks ;  and  Gummere,  the  clerk  of  the  BurUngton  quarter, 
states  that  he  still  receives  his  reports  from  him,  as  such  clerk. 

I  trust  I  have  established  to  the  satisfaction  of  this  court,  that 
the  "  Hicksite"  party,  having  previously  abandoned  the  religious 
faith  of  their  fathers,  have  seceded  from  the  rule  and  govern- 
ment of  the  church.  It  only  remains  to  consider  the  effect  of 
this  secession  and  abandonment,  upon  the  property  in  question  in 
this  cause. 

I  have  already  said  that  these  religious  societies  take  the  equi- 
table beneficial  interest  in  property  held  by  trustees  for  their  use 
and  on  their  account,  in  their  social  capacity  ;  and  I  have  shewn 
that  in  all  cases  of  charity,  that  cardinal  virtue  of  Christianity, 
societies  thus  formed  may  acquire  such  an  interest  in  property, 
and  that  a  court  of  equity  will  protect  it,  as  Chancellor  Kent 
observes.  The  court  would  otherwise  be  cut  off  from  a  large 
field  of  jurisdiction  over  some  of  the  most  interesting  and  mo- 
mentous trusts  that  can  possibly  be  created  and  confided  to  the 
integrity  of  men.  A  body  of  men  to  hold  property  in  a  court  of 
law,  in  a  social  capacity,  must  be  generally  incorporated.  There 
are  instances,  however,  in  which  they  are  allowed  thus  to  hold 
property  even  at  law,  without  an  actual  incorporation,  and  in 
such  cases  they  are  technically  termed  quasi  corporations.  An 
individual  having  an  interest  in  property  thus  held,  has  not  a 
vested  interest.  He  is  benefitted  by  it  in  his  social  relation  as  a 
member  of  that  society,  and  when  he  of  himself  and  others 
along  with  him,  forming  a  party,  cease  to  be  members  from 
whatever  cause,  of  that  particular  society,  they  cease  to  have 
an  interest  in  the  property  of  that  society. 

When  two  parties  arise  in  a  religious  society  holding  property 
thus  protected  in  a  court  of  equity,  as  a  charitable  institution, 
and  they  actually  divide  and  become  completely  separated,  hold- 
ing different  doctrines,  that  party  must  be  considered  as  forming 
the  true  society,  which  adheres  to  the  original  established  doc- 
trines of  the  society.  The  object  of  a  religious  society  is  religious 
worship.     But  they  worship  their  creator  according  to  certain 


52 

forms  and  doctrines  in  which  they  believe.  The  worship  of  their 
creator  in  this  way  is  the  special  purpose  for  which  the  society 
was  formed.  They  resemble  in  this  respect  a  corporation  creat- 
ed for  a  special  purpose.  In  such  a  case,  all  its  faculties  and 
powers  must  be  devoted  to  that  purpose.  A  departure  in  essen- 
tial particulars,  persevered  in,  will  be  a  cause  of  forfeiture  of  its 
rights  and  privileges.  Thus  an  association  formed  for  banking 
purposes,  could  not  appropriate  their  funds  to  purposes  essen- 
tially different.  And  thus  in  the  case  of  a  religious  society 
formed  for  the  promotion  of  certain  religious  doctrines,  and 
for  worship  agreeably  to  those  doctrines,  the  funds  cannot,  with- 
out violating  the  plainest  dictates  of  justice  as  well  as  law,  be 
perverted  to  the  support  of  different  doctrines  and  a  different 
kind  of  worship.  And  when  an  unfortunate  division  arises,  that 
party  which  clings  to  the  original  faith  of  the  society,  or  in  other 
words,  to  the  special  purpose  for  which  it  was  originally  orga- 
nized, must,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  considered  the  true  so- 
ciety, whenever  the  separation  between  them  has  become  so 
marked  as  to  render  the  determination  upon  that  point  neces- 
sary. 

When  the  difference  arising  between  such  parties  has  refer- 
ence to  the  church  government,  and  it  is  carried  so  far,  that  one 
party  leave  the  government  of  the  church,  those  remaining  and 
adhering  to  the  ancient  government,  must  constitute  that  church. 
Those  thus  departing,  may  organize  and  form  a  new  society,  if 
they  please,  with  a  new  government,  but  they  must  acquire 
property  anew  if  they  have  occasion  to  use  any  in  their  new 
social  capacity.  They  cannot  take  the  property  of  the  old  soci- 
ety with  them. 

If  a  departure  either  in  faith  and  doctrine,  or  in  discipline  and 
church  government,  separately  produce  such  effects,  the  com- 
bined operation  of  the  two.  that  is  a  departure  both  in  faith  and 
in  government,  must  unquestionably  terminate  in  the  like  result. 

The  opinion  entertained  by  the  "  Hicksite"  party,  that  a  radi- 
cal departure  by  a  portion  of  the  society  from  the  established 
faith  and  doctrine  of  the  church,  cannot  be  inquired  into  by  a 
temporal  tribunal,  is  so  far  from  being  true,  that  on  the  con- 
trary, such  a  departure  is  not  only  a  ground  of  forfeiture  of  their 
privileges  and  franchises  in  the  church,  but  it  is  a  consideration 


53 

of  paramount  importance  before  the  temporal  tribunal.  Thus  if 
there  are  two  parties,  one  of  which  has  departed  in  essential 
doctrine,  and  the  other  in  relation  to  church  government,  and  a 
marked  separation  has  taken  place  between  them,  that  party 
which  adheres  to  the  true  doctrines,  will  be  deemed  the  true 
church,  and  as  such  entitled  to  all  its  temporalities. 

The  opposite  party  pretend  that  they  have  the  majority. — 
This  is  denied,  and  they  certainly  have  failed  to  prove  it.  Their 
own  witnesses  in  the  cross-examination  shew  that  but  little  re- 
liance can  be  placed  on  the  lists  they  have  furnished,  for  they 
are  grossly  inaccurate.  But  I  will  not  go  into  details  upon  this 
point,  because  if  my  view  of  the  subject  be  correct,  it  is  alto- 
gether unnecessary ;  and  it  would  be  altogether  unnecessary  in 
the  case  of  a  society  which  usually  votes  by  majorities.  In  such 
a  case  the  majority  will  regulate  and  decide  on  subjects  coming 
within  Ihe  pale  of  their  authority,  and  which  are  not  in  violation 
of  the  trust.  But  a  majority  have  no  power  to  break  up  the  ori- 
ginal land-marks  of  the  institution.  They  have  no  power  to 
divert  the  property  held  by  them  in  their  social  capacity  from 
the  special  purpose  for  which  it  was  bestowed.  They  could  not 
turn  a  Baptist  society  into  a  Presbyterian  society,  or  a  Quaker 
into  an  Episcopalian  society.  They  could  not  pervert  an  insti- 
tution and  its  funds  formed  for  trinitarian  purposes  to  anti-trini- 
tarian  purposes.  It  might  as  well  be  pretended  that  they  could 
divert  the  funds  devoted  to  the  sustenance  of  aged  and  decrepid 
seamen  to  the  use  and  benefit  of  a  foundling  hospital.  A  corpo- 
ration diverted  from  the  purposes  of  its  institution  will  be  regu- 
lated and  brought  back  to  its  original  objects  by  a  court  of  law, 
and  a  religious  society  protected  by  the  law  of  charities  will  be 
kept  to  its  original  destination  by  the  powerful  arm  of  this  high 
court. 

The  principles  which  I  have  endeavoured  to  explain,  appear 
to  me  to  flow  so  naturally  from  the  doctrines  of  trusts,  familiar  to 
every  equity  lawyer,  as  not  to  admit  of  any  dispute,  nor  do  T  know 
that  the  counsel  on  the  other  side  will  attempt  to  dispute  them. 
I  will  call  the  attention  of  the  court,  however,  to  a  few  autho- 
rities for  the  purpose  of  illustration.  In  the  case  of  Baker  and 
others  against  Fales,  16  Mas.  R.  488,  it  was  decided,  that  when 
the  majority  of  the  members  of  a  congregational  church  secede 


54 

from  the  parish,  those  who  remain,  though  a  minority,  constitute 
the  cliurch  in  such  parish,  and  retain  the  property  belonging 
thereto.  The  court  say  that  the  very  term,  church,  imports  an 
organization  for  religious  purposes,  and  property  given  to  it  eo 
nomine  in  the  absence  of  all  declaration  of  trust  or  use,  must  by 
necessary  implication,  be  intended  to  be  given  to  promote  the 
purposes  for  which  a  church  is  instituted,  the  most  prominent  of 
which  is  the  public  worship  of  God.  That  as  to  all  civil  purposes 
the  secession  of  a  whole  church  from  the  parish  would  be  an  ex- 
tinction of  the  church,  and  it  is  competent  for  the  members  of  the 
parish  to  institute  a  new  church,  or  to  engraft  one  upon  the  old 
stock.  But  where  members  enough  are  left  to  execute  the  objects 
for  which  a  church  is  gathered,  choose  deacons,  &c.,  no  legal 
change  has  taken  place :  the  body  remains,  and  the  secession  of 
the  majority  of  the  members  would  have  no  other  effect  than  a 
temporary  absence  would  have  upon  a  meeting  which  had  been 
regularly  summoned.  The  same  point  was  in  effect  determined 
in  8  Mas.  R.  96. 

In  the  case  of  Ryerson  against  Roome  decided  in  this  court,  a 
part  of  the  members  of  a  church  left  it,  and  were  incorporated 
anew,  and  formed  a  distinct  church.  The  late  chancellor  of  New 
Jersey  decided  that  they  were  not  entitled  to  any  of  the  property ; 
that  the  whole  continued  to  belong  to  the  old  church. 

The  case  of  the  Attorney  General  against  Pearson,  reported  in 
3  Merivale,  was  very  fully  discussed  at  the  bar,  and  maturely  con- 
sidered by  Lord  Eldon.  A  bill  and  information  was  exhibited  by 
the  Attorney  General,  by  Stuart  claiming  to  be  the  minister,  and 
by  Mandon,  a  trustee;  the  defendants  alleged  that  a  majority  of 
the  congregation  united  in  choosing  another  parson,  who  was  a 
vmitarian.  The  property  was  given  upwards  of  a  century  pre- 
ceding in  trust  for  -preaching  the  gospel,  but  without  disignating 
in  the  trust  the  kind  of  religious  doctrines  to  be  taught.  They 
said  that  in  1780  some  of  the  members  were  trinitarian,and  some 
unitarian;  that  in  1813  they  appointed  Stuart  the  complainant 
their  minister,  then  being  a  unitarian,  but  that  in  1816,  having 
turned  trinitarian,  they  dismissed  him,  and  that  Joseph  Grey,  a 
unitarian  preacher,  with  the  unanimovs  consent  of  the  congrega- 
tion, was  appointed  in  his  place.  The  Lord  Chancellor  decided 
that  this  being  a  trust  for  religious  purposes  a  court  of  equity 


55 

would  exercise  complete  jurisdiction.  That  the  deed  being  in 
trust  for  religious  worship  without  mentioning  the  kind,  the  court 
would  resort  to  usage  to  explain  it,  and  to  ascertain  the  kind  of 
worship  originally  intended.  That  it  was  not  in  the  power  of  the 
members  to  change  the  original  purpose  of  the  trust,  and  if  estab- 
lished for  trinitarian  purposes,  to  convert  it  to  purposes  anti- 
trinitarian.  That  the  trustees,  though  vested  with  the  power  of 
making  orders  from  time  to  time,  cannot  turn  it  into  a  meeting 
house  of  a  different  description,  and  for  teaching  different  doctrines 
from  those  established  by  the  founder ;  that  he,  as  chancellor, 
had  nothing  to  do  with  religious  doctrines  except  to  ascertain  the 
purpose  of  the  trust,  that  he  was  bound  to  determine  that  ques- 
tion and  not  to  permit  that  purpose  to  be  altered. 

This  case  is  too  plain  to  require  comment.  That  great  Chan- 
cellor on  a  question  of  property  did  not  shrink  from  inquiring  into 
religious  doctrines  to  ascertain  a  trust,  and  to  make  the  property 
conform  to  the  tru.it,  under  the  fantastic  idea  that  such  matters 
were  too  sacred  or  sublimated  for  an  English  court  of  justice. 
Though  it  had  been  used  for  years  for  unitarian  purposes,  and 
the  present  incumbent,  an  unitarian  preacher,  was  appointed 
unanimously^  he  directs  an  inquiry  before  the  master  as  to  what 
was  the  original  purpose  of  the  trust,  that  he  might  settle  the 
property  and  have  it  appropriated  to  the  maintenance  of  those 
doctrines  which  were  originally  intended,  and  that  too  without 
inquiring  whether  there  was  any  formal  creed  or  confession  of 
faith  drawn  up  and  signed. 

In  the  second  volume  of  Bligh's  Reports,  page  529,  you  will  find 
the  case  of  Craigdallie  against  Aikman  and  others.  This  was  a 
Scotch  case  and  came  up  before  the  House  of  Lords.  A  large  part 
of  the  members  of  a  congregation  left  the  jurisdiction  of  the  synod. 
But  they  claimed  to  hold  the  property  on  the  ground  that  they  were 
the  true  church,  in  as  much  as  they  adhered  to  the  original  doctrines 
of  the  church,  andthey  alleged  that  the  synod  had  departed  from 
those  doctrines.  The  court  below  decided  in  favour  of  the  party 
who  still  adhered  to  the  synod.  In  the  House  of  Lords,  where 
Lord  Eldon  presided,  the  court  under  his  advice  decided,  that  if 
it  were  true,  that  the  members  of  the  congregation  thus  seceding, 
adhered  to  the  original  doctrines  of  the  church,  for  the  support  of 
which,  the  trust  was  originally  created,  they  were  entitled  to  the 


56 

property,  notwithstanding  their  secession,  and  that,  in  such  case, 
the  decision  below,  should  be  reversed.  They  therefore  referred 
the  case  back,  with  directions  that  an  inquiry  should  be  made 
into  the  subject  of  doctrines.  The  case  came  again  before  the 
House  of  Lords  with  a  report  from  the  court  below,  that  on  in- 
quiry they  could  not  tind  that  there  was  any  material  and  intel- 
ligible distinction  between  them  on  the  subject  of  doctrine,  and 
that  they  differed,  only,  on  some  immaterial  point  in  regard  to  the 
form  of  an  oath.  The  court  then  affirmed  the  decision  below. 
This  case  shews  that  either  a  secession  from  the  government  of 
the  church  or  a  departure  in  doctrine,  will  amount  to  an  aban- 
donment of  right,  but  that  the  departure  from  the  religious  doc- 
trines of  the  church  is  of  primary  and  paramount  importance. 
The  case  also  shews,  that  in  determining  the  mere  question  of  se- 
cession, the  court  looks  to  the  highest  Ecclesiastical  tribunal 
which  exercises  a  superintending  control  over  the  inferior  judica- 
tories, and  that  their  position  must  be  regulated  by  the  relation- 
ship in  which  they  stand  to  the  highest  controling  tribunal  in 
the  Church.  The  same  point  has  been  decided  in  the  state  of 
New  York.  The  trustees  of  the  Reformed  Calvinist  Church  of 
Canajoharie  sued  Diffendorf  *  for  his  subscription  money  which 
he  had  promised  to  pay  annually  as  long  as  the  Rev.  J.  J.  Wack 
remained  their  regular  preacher.  This  clergyman  had  been  de- 
posed by  the  Classis  having  the  immediate  superintendence  of 
that  church,  but  on  appeal  to  the  synod,  the  highest  church  ju- 
dicatory, he  was  restored.  The  court  decided  that  the  adjudi- 
cation of  the  highest  ecclesiastical  tribunal  upon  this  matter, 
was  conclusive  upon  the  subject,  and  that  they  must  consider 
him  the  regular  preacher.  In  the  case  of  Den  against  Bolton 
and  others,  7  Halsted's  Reports,  you  had  the  rules  and  govern- 
ment of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  before  you  as  Justices  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  and  it  must  be  within  your  recollection  that 
the  synod  of  that  church,  has  about  the  same  general  control 
over  the  inferior  tribunals  of  that  church,  as  is  held  by  the  year- 
ly meetings  of  the  society  of  Friends.  In  that  case  the  Supreme 
Court  decided  that  all  disputes  arising  in  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church,  respecting  the  validity  of  an  election  appointment  on  call 
of  elders  and  deacons  must  be  referred  to  the  Church  Judicatory 

*  20  Johns.  R.  12. 


57 

to  which  the  congregation  is  subordinate ;  that  is,  first  to  the 
classis,  next  to  the  particular  synod,  and  lastly  to  the  general 
synod.  That  the  decision  of  the  classis  upon  any  such  election, 
appointment,  or  call  is  final,  unless  appealed  from,  and  its  decision 
will  be  respected  by  the  Supreme  Court,  and  full  effect  given  to 
it.  That  though  the  consistory  may  be  dissatisfied  with  the  de- 
cision of  the  classis,  they  cannot  get  clear  of  their  decision  by 
changing  their  allegiance.  And  the  Chief  Justice,  in  delivering 
his  opinion,  distinctly  stated  that  to  constitute  a  member  of  any 
church,  two  points  at  the  least  are  essential,  a  profession  of  its 
faith  and  a  submission  to  its  government. 

These  authorities  will  be  found  fully  to  support  the  legal  po- 
sitions 1  have  advanced.  The  application  of  them  to  the  case  is 
too  plain  to  require  much  comment.  If  the  "  Hicksite"  party 
have  abandoned  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  society  of 
Friends,  and  we  have  shewn  that  they  have ;  or  if  they  have 
withdrawn  from  the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphiaj  the  highest 
church  judicatory,  having  a  general  superintending  control,  and 
if  their  preparative  meeting  at  Crossvvicks  is  attached  to  their 
new  yearly  meeting,  and  denies  the  jurisdiction  of  the  ancient 
yearly  meeting,  all  which  we  have  shewn,  they  are  not  the 
true  society  of  Friends.  In  attempting  to  hold  this  property  they 
are  violating  the  trust.  It  is  the  especial  duty  of  this  Court  to 
preserve  the  trust  and  to  redress  the  injury. 

I  must  be  allowed  again  to  remark  before  I  dismiss  this  sub- 
ject, that  the  question  before  you  regards  property.  You  are 
not  called  on  to  pass  upon  the  merits  of  religious  doctrine  or 
church  government  in  the  abstract,  as  points  of  theology.  You 
are  only  to  ascertain  what  the  doctrines  of  this  church  are, 
what  was  its  government ;  in  fact  which  party  adheres  to  those 
doctrines  and  which  has  abandoned  them.  Which  party  adheres 
to  the  government  which  existed  when  the  dissention  took  place, 
and  which  has  withdrawn  from  it,  as  subsidiary  to  the  main 
question  of  property,  and  in  order  to  ascertain  and  enforce  the 
trust.  The  questions  are  delicate,  and  they  also  are  of  great  im- 
portance, and  highly  interesting.  It  is  now  to  be  solemnly  deter- 
mined how  far  church  property  is  protected.  Whether  the  various 
churches  spread  over  New  Jersey,  adhering  to  settled  doctrines, 
and  organized  under  regular  forms  of  law  and  discipline,  are  to 


58 

be  protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  property,  held  in  trust  for  them 
and  for  the  support  of  those  fixed  religious  opinions,  or  whether 
on  the  other  hand,  innovators  introducing  new  opinions  into  a 
church,  and  carrying  parties  along  with  them,  and  thus  getting 
into  possession  of  the  property  of  the  church,  may  apply  it  to  the 
support  of  new  and  dilTerent  doctrines,  put  the  church  govern- 
ment at  defiance  by  denying  its  authority,  and  by  forming  in 
conventions  composed  of  their  own  party  a  new  government,  put 
the  government  and  law  of  the  land  at  defiance,  by  refusing 
when  called  on  in  courts  of  justice  to  disclose  or  testify  to  their 
doctrines  under  the  cry  of  persecution,  and  under  the  pretence 
that  such  matters  are  too  delicate  and  sacred  for  temporal  tribu- 
nals to  discuss.  Men  have  a  right  to  change  their  minds  in  re- 
ligion as  well  as  in  any  thing  else :  they  have  a  right  to  form 
new  churches  conformably  to  their  new  opinions,  and  to  endow 
them  when  thus  formed,  but  they  must  do  it  fairly  and  openly, 
not  under  false  guises  and  mysterious  proceedings  kept  in  the 
back-ground,  so  that  they  may  draw  off  the  funds  and  domains 
of  the  ancient  and  established  churches  of  the  land,  and  apply 
them  to  their  new  purposes.  You  have  now  before  you  all  the  evi- 
dence that  can  be  desired,  taken  with  great  labour  and  at  great 
expense.  The  cause  is  ripe  for  decision,  and  justice  calls  for  it. 
Every  source  of  information  has  been  traced  up  and  exhausted. 
From  the  investigation  which  I  have  been  called  upon  to  make 
into  the  doctrines  of  this  society,  in  the  discharge  of  my  profes- 
sional duty,  1  have  been  led  to  believe  that  this  difference  of 
opinion  never  would  have  taken  place  if  the  members  of  this 
society  had  been  adequately  instructed  in  their  standard  works. 
They  have  a  catechism  prepared  by  a  writer  of  great  learning 
and  ability ;  it  bears  the  marks  of  great  care  and  pains  in  the 
execution,  and  it  may  fairly  challenge  competition  in  the 
plan  and  design  with  any  production  of  the  kind.  If  that  cate- 
chism and  the  other  works  of  that  author  were  well  studied 
and  digested  among  the  youth  of  this  society  they  would  soon 
lose  their  relish  for  the  conceits  of  Elias  Hicks. 


SPEECH 


ISAAC  H.  WILLIAMSON,  Esq. 

Delivered  on  Tuesday  and  Wednesday,  the  10th  and  11th  of 
January,  1832. 

May  it  please  the  Court — 

The  unfortunate  circunnstances  which  have  given  rise  to  this 
cause  are  deeply  to  be  lanfiented  by  every  friend  of  religion,  and 
to  the  pious  members  of  the  society  of  Friends  they  must  be  truly 
distressing.  That  ancient  and  highly  respectable  society  which 
has  so  long  been  distinguished  for  love  of  peace  and  order;  for 
its  meekness,  for  the  patience  with  which  its  members  have  sub- 
mitted to  persecution,  and  above  all,  for  the  union  and  harmony, 
the  brotherly  love  and  christian  charity  by  which  they  have  prov- 
ed to  the  world  that  they  richly  deserved  the  title  by  which  they 
have  been  designated,  "  The  Society  of  Friends."  They  have 
fallen  from  the  high  elevation  on  which  they  stood  ;  the  torch  of 
discord  has  been  lighted  up  among  them  ;  the  union  which  exist- 
ed has  been  broken  ;  instead  of  fellowship  and  harmony,  we  find 
now  contention  and  strife.  This  is  the  more  to  be  lamented  as  it 
has  happened  in  a  time  of  universal  religious  excitement  and  of 
unexampled  christian  effort  to  spread  the  benign  principles  of  the 
gospel.  Whilst  every  means  is  using  to  promote  the  diffusion  of 
light  and  truth,  while  the  heralds  of  the  cross  are  sent  to  foreign 
lands  to  proclaim  the  message  of  redeeming  love,  and  to  hold 
forth  the  doctrines  of  the  religion  of  Jesus,  disputes  and  dissen- 
sion have  unhappily  arisen  at  home.  It  is  unfortunate  for  all ; 
there  is  an  awful  responsibility  somewhere. 

It  is  for  me  to  endeavour  to  trace  effects  to  their  true  causes, 
and  to  ascertain  what  has  produced  this  sad  state  of  things.  I 
shall  go  into  this  enquiry  with  extreme  reluctance.  When  1 
consider  the  task  I  have  undertaken,  the  arduous  labour  I 
am  to  perform,  I  almost  shrink  from  it.  I  shall  not  attempt  to 
answer  all  the  arguments  of  the  adverse  counsel ;  many  of  them 


60 

I  conceive  have  no  bearing  on  the  case,  but  I  shall  endeavour 
to  present  my  view  of  the  subject  to  the  court  in  a  condensed 
form,  and  in  such  way  as  shall  abridge  their  labours  as  far  as 
practicable.  I  shall  endeavour  to  ascertain  what  is  the  true 
question  before  the  court,  and  in  order  that  I  may  be  the  more 
clearly  understood  permit  me  first  to  state  what  it  is  not.  It  is 
not  whether  a  number  of  individuals  belonging  to  a  religious  soci- 
ety have  a  right  to  withdraw  and  form  a  new  one,  this  right  is 
unquestionable. 

Nor  is  it  whether  this  court  have  a  spiritual  jurisdiction  ; 
whether  they  have  a  right  to  inquire  into  men's  private  opinions, 
as  to  matters  of  faith  or  religious  belief,  and  to  control  their  con- 
sciences. We  claim  no  such  authority  for  this  court,  nor  do 
we  pretend  that  the  court  can  take  notice  of  the  comparative 
merit  of  religious  creeds,  nor  decide  which  of  them  is  the  true 
one,  for  this  would  be  to  ask  them  to  point  out  the  true  way  to 
the  heavenly  Jerusalem.  Our  laws  leave  every  man  to  the  free 
exercise  of  his  own  opinions  and  to  worship  God  according  to  the 
dictates  of  his  own  conscience,  uncontrolled  by  any  inquisitorial 
power.  But  I  shall  contend  that  the  court  have  a  right  to 
inquire  into  the  opinions  and  doctrines  of  the  professors  of  religion, 
for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  true  ownership  of  property,  or 
the  correct  disposition  of  it.  This  is  not  to  interfere  with  men's 
consciences,  nor  with  their  religious  belief,  or  to  exercise  a  spi- 
ritual jurisdiction.  The  question  now  before  the  court  is  a  mere 
question  of  property  arising  out  of  a  trust,  and  this  court  has  not 
only  a  jurisdiction  over  property,  but  an  exclusive  jurisdiction 
over  trusts.  The  property  in  dispute  is  a  charity,  a  fund  raised 
for  the  purpose  of  educating  poor  children  belonging  to  the  society 
of  Friends  in  Chesterfield,  in  this  state.  It  was  raised  by  sub- 
scription, by  voluntary  contributions  and  donations  from  the 
quarterly  and  annual  meetings  of  which  the  preparative  meeting 
of  Chesterfield  is  a  constituent  part,  and  the  object  of  the  charity 
is  expressly  designated.  There  are  two  parties  claiming  the 
control  of  this  property.  The  parties  on  the  record  are  nominal 
parties  only,  Hendrickson  and  Decow  in  their  own  right  claim 
nothing,  they  claim  merely  for  the  benefit  of  the  societies  to 
which  they  respectively  belong.  I  shall  therefore  consider  it  in  its 
true  character,  as  a  question  between  these  two  societies,  and 


61 

here  I  am  somewhat  at  a  loss  how  to  distinguish  these  parties. 
The  world,  that  part  of  it  I  mean  which  has  heard  of  this  con- 
troversy, has  given  them  distinctive  appellations,  the  one  "  Or- 
thodox," the  other  "  Hicksite."  We  are  not  dissatisfied  with  the 
name  given  to  us.  Ever  since  the  fourth  century  when  the  con- 
troversy arose  between  the  arians  and  the  trinitarians,  those  who 
adhered  to  what  arc  termed  trinitarian  doctrines  have  been 
called  "Orthodox."  They  are  now  styled  "  Orthodox"  to  dis- 
tinguish them  from  arians  and  all  modern  unitarians  by  what- 
ever name  they  may  be  designated.  The  term  "  Orthodox" 
therefore  has  been  used  to  signify, '  sound  in  faith,  correct  in 
doctrine,'  and  in  this  sense  we  are  satisfied  with  being  designated 
as  the  "  Orthodox"  party.  But  how  shall  I  distinguish  the  op- 
posite party,  for  they  disown  the  name  of  "  Hicksites"  ?  Shall  I 
call  them  disorganizers  ?  They  deserve  the  name,  for  they  have 
introduced  into  a  peaceful  society,  all  this  discord.  Shall  I 
call  them  unitarians  1  They  will  neither  confess  nor  deny,  they 
refuse  to  inform  us  whether  they  believe  or  disbelieve  the  doc- 
trines of  the  trinity.  Shall  I  call  them  jacobins  and  sansculottes, 
as  one  of  their  own  counsel  did,  (and  no  doubt  he  thought  they 
well  deserved  the  epithets,)  or  shall  I  call  them  usurpers  1  They 
are  such,  for  they  have  usurped  our  rights  and  our  name.  I  can- 
not call  them  by  the  name  which  they  have  assumed.  I  shall 
therefore  call  them,  as  the  world  has  called  them,  "  The  Hicksite 
party." 

We  claim  before  the  court  that  this  party  have  separated 
from  the  society  to  which  they  originally  belonged.  That  they 
are  separatists ;  and  being  such,  have  lost  all  right  to,  and  control 
over  this  fund.  I  will  not  say  they  have  forfeited  their  right  to 
it,  but  I  contend  they  have  lost  all  right  to  interfere  with,  or  to 
control  it.  They  have  separated  from  the  society  and  meeting 
to  which  they  belonged,  and  for  whose  use  the  charity  was  ori- 
ginally designed:  they  can  therefore  have  no  claim  to  it. 

I  shall  contend,  First,  that  they  are  separatists,  and  being  such, 
that  they  have  no  right  to  this  property. 

Second,  that  they  have  separated  on  the  ground  of  religious 
doctrines,  that  they  have  changed  their  religious  opinions,  and  do 
not  adhere  to  the  doctrines  of  the  society  of  Friends.  They  fol- 
low a  new  leader  who  holds  out  new  lights,  and  they  have  de- 


62 

serted  old  friends  for  new  ones.  If  I  can  show  this  court  that  they 
have  abandoned  the  ancient  doctrines  of  Friends,  those  which 
they  held  when  this  trust  was  created,  1  shall  satisfy  the  court 
that  they  can  have  no  control  over  this  property.  But  we  are 
met  with  the  objection  that  we  have  no  right  to  go  into  this  in- 
quiry— no  right  to  inquire  into  men's  religious  opinions  and  belief. 
I  have  already  admitted  that  you  have  no  right  to  do  so  except 
for  special  purposes.  But  if  this  court  once  obtain  jurisdiction 
of  a  cause  upon  grounds  of  equity,  they  will  decide  that  cause 
although  they  are  compelled  to  go  into  matters  over  which  they 
have  no  original  jurisdiction.  The  court  we  admit,  has  no  juris- 
diction over  men's  religious  opinions,  yet  if  an  inquiry  into  those 
opinions  becomes  necessary  in  the  investigation  of  a  question  be- 
fore the  court  to  settle  a  claim  of  property,  it  will  go  into  that 
inquiry. 

It  has  no  criminal  jurisdiction,  it  cannot  inflict  punishment,  but 
if  in  the  progress  of  a  cause  respecting  property  the  question 
arises  whether  a  deed  has  been  forged,  the  court  will  go  into  an 
investigation  of  the  alleged  crime,  not  for  the  purpose  of  inflict- 
ing punishment,  but  for  the  purpose  of  settling  rights.  Again,  the 
court  have  no  jurisdiction  over  corporations,  they  cannot  remove 
an  oflicer  who  has  been  elected,  nor  restore  him  if  he  has  been 
wrongfully  removed.  But  if  in  the  course  of  an  inquiry  a  question 
arises  whether  an  officer  has  been  duly  elected  the  court  must 
go  into  it.  Or  if  the  question  arises  in  a  cause  of  which  the  court 
has  jurisdiction,  respecting  the  election  of  directors  of  a  bank,  or 
managers  of  a  turnpike  road,  the  court  must  go  into  the  inquiry, 
not  because  they  have  original  jurisdiction  of  that  question,  but 
for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  right  of  properly  to  which  (he 
respective  parties  advance  their  claims.  So  in  the  present  case, 
if  the  right  of  property  depends  upon  religious  opinions,  the  court 
must  go  into  the  inquiry  as  to  those  opinions,  unless  religious 
opinions  and  doctrines  form  an  exception  to  all  other  description 
of  cases.  This  is  not  a  new  question,  but  one  which  is  well 
settled  and  concerning  which  there  can  be  but  little  difficulty. 
In  1  Dow,  16,  Lord  Eldon  says,  "  the  court  may  take  notice  of 
religious  opinions,  as  facts  pointing  out  the  ownership  of  pro- 
perty." 

Here  the  true  distinction  is  taken,  the  court  go  into  questions 


63 

of  religious  opinion  and  doctrine  as  matters  of  fact,  to  ascertain 
the  true  ownership  of  property.  In  3  Merivale,  412,  in  a  case 
very  analagous  to  the  present,  the  Lord  Chancellor  says — "I 
must  observe,  if  the  question  comes  before  the  court  in  the  exe- 
cution of  a  trust,  vt'hether  a  trustee  has  been  properly  removed, 
and  that  point  depends  upon  the  question,  whether  the  trustee 
has  changed  his  religion,  and  become  of  another  (as  in  this 
instance)  different  from  the  religion  of  the  rest  of  the  society,  it 
must  then  be,  ex  necesitate,  for  the  court  to  enquire,  what  was 
the  religion  and  worship  of  the  society  from  which  lie  is  said  to 
have  seceded,"  &.c. 

In  that  case  it  seems  a  church  had  been  built  for  the  worship 
of  dissenters,  and  the  trust  declared  in  the  deed  was  simply  "  /or 
the  sei'vice  and  worship  of  God"  This  church  had  gone  into  the 
hands  of  a  part  of  the  congregation  who  were  unitarians.  Part 
of  the  congregation  were  trinitarians  and  they  filed  their  bill, 
alleging,  that  the  house  was  built  to  promote  the  spread  of  trini- 
tarian  doctrines,  in  order  to  obtain  the  possession  of  the  property 
from  those  who  held  it  for  the  purpose  of  preaching  unitarian 
doctrines.  The  court  went  into  the  enquiry  whether  the  con- 
gregation was  originally  trinitarian  or  unitarian.  This  case  then 
is  analogous  to  that  on  which  we  now  ask  the  opinion  of  this 
court.  The  doctrine  contended  for  by  the  opposite  counsel  would 
be  prejudicial  to  religion  and  injurious  to  every  religious  congre- 
gation. U  a  trust  be  created  for  the  benefit  of  a  congregation 
professing  one  kind  of  religious  doctrines,  and  afterwards  claimed 
by  a  part  of  that  congregation,  but  professing  opinions  of  another 
kind,  can  it  be  maintained  that  the  court  will  not  or  cannot  en- 
quire into  the  doctrines  of  those  who  claim  the  control  of  that 
trust,  and  into  the  doctrines  of  the  church  at  the  time  of  the  cre- 
ation of  the  trust;  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  who  are  the 
cestui  que  trusts  entitled  to  it  ?  And  permit  me  to  say,  that  if  any 
trust  ought  to  be  protected,  it  is  a  trust  for  charity,  and  especially 
those  of  a  religious  nature.  I  entertain  therefore  no  doubt,  but 
that  the  court  will  protect  this  trust  fund  to  the  extent  of  its 
powers. 

But  it  has  been  contended,  that  if  this  can  be  done  in  cases  of 
schisms  in  other  religious  denominations,  yet  it  cannot  be  done 
in  the  case  now  in  question,  because,  as  they  allege,  the  society 
of  Friends  has  no  creed,  no  confession  of  faith,  by  which  their 


64 

opinions  can  be  tested.  I  shall  not  now  stop  to  enquire  what 
their  doctrines  are,  or  whether  they  have  such  a  creed.  My 
present  purpose  is  to  satisfy  the  court  that  they  can  go  into  the 
enquiry  what  the  doctrines  of  the  society  were  at  the  time  this 
trust  was  created,  and  what  the  doctrines  of  those  are  who  have 
since  separated  from  that  society.  But  I  shall  hereafter  contend 
that  the  society  of  Friends  have  a  creed — that  they  have  re- 
peatedly published  it,  and  that  it  is  easier  to  ascertain  the 
opinions  of  Friends,  than  of  any  other  religious  society  in  the 
country.  But  even  supposing  the  contrary,  will  the  court  refuse 
to  go  into  this  enquirj'  on  account  of  its  difficulty? 

I  will  refer  the  court  to  a  case  of  much  greater  difficulty  ;  the 
case  to  which  I  allude  is  in  3  Dessausure,  557,  where  the  court 
was  not  deterred  from  going  into  the  necessary  enquiry  by  the 
difficulty  of  it.  That  vi'as  a  controversy  between  two  lodges  of 
free  masons ;  and  it  was  decided  that  the  grand  lodge  could  not 
make  regulations  subversive  of  fundamental  principles  and  land- 
marks. The  question  was  whether  a  certain  test  oath  adopted 
by  the  grand  lodge,  was  of  that  character.  Nothing  could  be  ob- 
tained from  the  witnesses  but  matter  of  opinion,  as  they  refused 
to  testify  what  their  fundamental  principles  and  land-marks 
were;  great  contrariety  also  existed  in  the  testimony,  the  wit- 
nesses upon  one  side  swearing  that  in  their  opinion  the  test  oath 
was  a  departure  from  the  fundamental  principles  and  land- 
marks, and  those  on  the  other  side  swearing  that  it  was  not  so. 
But  did  the  court  shrink  from  the  investigation,  because  it  was 
attended  with  difficulty  'i  No.  They  went  into  the  enquiry  and 
decided  the  question  upon  the  evidence  before  them.  We  have 
been  referred  to  an  opinion  of  Judge  Emmett,  in  the  state  of 
New  York,  and  the  character  of  the  judge  has  been  highly  eulo- 
gized. That  judge  certainly  stands  high,  and  his  opinion  is  enti- 
tled to  great  respect.  But  the  opinion  produced  is  a  charge  to 
a  jury,  delivered  in  the  haste  of  a  trial,  and  without  an  oppor- 
tunity for  full  and  calm  examination,  and  therefore  not  entitled 
to  the  weight  of  a  deliberate  opinion.  That,  moreover,  was  a 
trial  at  law,  and  the  court  over-ruled  evidence  of  religious  opin- 
ions, upon  what  ground  I  do  not  know,  except  that  the  enquiry 
was  a  proper  one  for  a  court  of  equity  and  not  for  a  court  of 
law.     This  evidence  being  laid  out  of  view,  the  judge  undertook 


65 

to  charge  the  jury  that  in  the  absence  of  all  other  considerations, 
the  majority  must  govern.  This  opinion  being  at  law,  cannot 
be  held  to  govern  in  the  present  case.  A  majority  can  have  no 
more  right  to  divert  a  trust  fund  from  the  object  for  which  it 
was  originally  intended,  than  a  minority. 

But  what  is  the  consequence  if  the  court  cannot  go  into  this 
enquiry  in  the  case  of  a  schism  in  a  society  of  Friends  ?     Is  the 
society  of  Friends  to  be  an  exception  to  all  other  societies,  be- 
cause they  have  no  written   creed  or  articles  of  faith,  and  the 
difficulty  of  ascertaining  their  religious  doctrines  ?      Can  the 
presbyterian,  the  episcopalian,  the  Roman  catholic  funds  be  pro- 
tected, and  yet   the  property  given  in  trust  to  the  society  of 
Friends  not  be  protected  1     Can  it  be  that  the  arm  of  the  law  is 
not  long  enough,  or  strong  enough,  to  reach  their  case,  and  that 
they  are  to  be  put  out  of  the  protection  and  pale  of  the  law  ? 
The  clients  of  those  learned  counsellors,  when  they  look  at  the 
consequences  of  this  doctrine,  will  not,  I  should  think,  thank  them 
for  its  avowal.     If  it  be  true,  it  leaves  the  society  of  Friends  a 
peculiar  people,  to  settle  their  differences  in  their  own  way, 
without  protection  and  without  redress.     I  do  not  apprehend  that 
breaches  of  the  peace  would  be  the  consequence  of  such  a  doc- 
trine ;  this  society  would  not  in  any  event  resort  to  physical 
force,  but  the  necessary  result  would  be,  that  if  a  part  of  a  reli- 
gious meeting  attached  to  a  general  or  yearly  meeting,  saw  fit  to 
change  their  religious  principles,  no  matter  to  what,  or  how  ad- 
verse to  those  held  by  the  original  society,  they  might  carry  with 
them  the  whole  of  the  property,  if  they  had  it  in  their  hands,  and 
yet  the  law  could  not  reach  them,  because  they  have  no  written 
religious  creed.     Thus  then,  a  trust  fund  created  for  the  express 
use  of  the  society  of  Friends,  might  be  converted  to  build  a  Ro- 
man cathoHc  chapel,  or  a  synagogue  for  Jews.     This  cannot  be. 
If  it  should  even  be  a  matter  of  more  than  ordinary  difficulty  to 
discover  the  creed  of  this  society,  that  will  not  deter  the  court, 
but  they  will  make  greater  exertions  to  arrive  at  the  truth. 

And  here  I  think  the  opposite  counsel  who  first  addressed  the 
court,  took  a  false  position.  He  contended,  that  it  was  incum- 
bent on  us  to  prove  the  religious  opinions  of  his  clients ;  that  the 
burden  of  proof  was  upon  us,  not  upon  them.  I  think  he  must 
have  forgotten  the  position  in  which  the  parties  stand  before  this 


66 

court.     They  do  not  stand  here  in  the  character  of  plaintiff  and 
defendant,   but  in  the  character  of  claimants ;  both  parties  are 
actors,  and  each  one  is  bound  to  make  out  his  own  claim.     We 
make  out  ours  ;  we  prove  all  that  the  trust  requires ;  we  answer 
the  allegations  contained  in  the  bill  of  interpleader,  and  show 
that  our  religious  opinions  are  those  of  the  society  of  Friends. 
When  they  come  to  answer,  they  decline  showing  theirs.     It  is 
true,  they  say  they  have  not  changed  their  opinions,  that  they 
hold  the  doctrines  of  the  original  Friends,  as   they  understand 
them  ;  but  when  we  ask.  Do  you  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  atonement,  and  that  the  scriptures 
were  written  by  divine  inspiration  and  are  of  divine  authority  1 — 
all  which  were  held  to  be  fundamental  doctrines  by  the  early 
Friends — they  refuse  to  answer.     But  still  they  say,  We  hold 
the  doctrines  of  the  original  Friends.     This  answer  is  drawn  to 
suit  any  state  of  things  that  may  become  necessary.     Prove  the 
doctrines  of  the  original  Friends  to  be  what  you  please,  still  they 
say,  We  hold  the  same ;  prove  them  to  be  trinitarians.  We  are 
trinitarians ;  show  that  they  are  unitarians,  We  are  unitarians 
also;  prove  them  them  to  be  Jews,  and,  We  will  be  Jews  too. 
This  is  a  very  convenient  method  of  answering,  but  it  will  not 
effect  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  adopted.     The  bill  of  inter- 
pleader,  and  the  answers  of  Decow   and  Hendrickson,  put  in 
issue  the  original  doctrines  of  the  society,  and  permit  both  par- 
ties to  go  into  evidence  respecting  them.     We  prove  what  these 
original  doctrines  are,  and  that  we  hold  them.     But  the  adverse 
party  refuse  to  answer  as  to  the  doctrines  which  they  hold,  or  to 
grant  any  proof  respecting  them,  alleging  merely  that  they  have 
a  majority,  and  therefore  are  the  society. 

The  burden  of  proof  as  to  their  religious  doctrines,  was  upon 
them  ;  they  have  put  them  in  issue  by  their  own  pleadings,  and 
it  was  incumbent  upon  them  to  show  their  religious  principles, 
in  order  to  sustain  their  claim.  We  further  insist  that  their  re- 
fusal to  answer,  furnishes  a  strong  presumption  against  them.  If 
they  really  hold  the  doctrines  of  the  early  Friends,  as  they  al- 
lege, why  should  they  refuse  to  answer  1  What  inducement  have 
they  for  withholding,  or  refusing  to  avow  them  ?  Are  they 
ashamed  of  their  principles,  or  afraid  that  they  should  be  fully 
known,  on  account  of  the  legal  consequences  which  would  attend 


67 

an  avowal  of  them  ?  If  they  are  not,  why  decline  to  state  can- 
didly what  principles  they  do  hold  ?  But  it  is  said,  that  we  ought 
to  have  excepted  to  their  answer.  Not  so — we  are  satisfied  with 
the  answer  if  they  are.  We  do  not  wish  to  strip  otTthe  mask,  if 
they  choose  to  wear  it.  We  will  make  out  our  case  in  the 
clearest  manner  possible,  and  rely  upon  the  presumption  of  law 
against  them,  if  they  refuse  to  disclose  in  their  answer  their 
principles,  or  to  prove  them. 

But  the  gentlemen  have  suggested  another  ground  of  objection, 
with  the  hope,  as  I  apprehend,  of  escaping  out  of  the  hands  of 
this  honourable  court.  It  is  this,  that  inasmuch  as  they  have 
refused  to  answer,  in  reference  to  their  doctrines,  and  have  omit- 
ted to  examine  witnesses  in  their  behalf  on  that  subject,  the 
court  ought  not  to  decide  the  cause  now,  but  should  put  it  in 
some  shape  in  which  the  opinions  of  the  party  can  be  tested.  It 
ought  to  be  referred,  say  they,  to  a  master  to  ascertain,  or  to  a 
jury  to  settle,  what  the  doctrines  are.  But  can  the  gentlemen 
show  an  instance,  in  which  the  court  has  ever  ordered  a  refer- 
ence to  a  master,  or  directed  an  issue  to  be  formed  to  be  tried  by 
a  jury,  where  one  j'arty  has  proved  his  case,  and  the  other  party 
has  voluntarily  refused  to  do  so.  No,  they  cannot.  It  is  contrary, 
I  aver,  to  all  the  principles  of  a  court  of  equity.  The  court  will 
not  indulge  one  party  to  lie  by  until  he  has  heard  his  adversary's 
evidence,  and  then  grant  him  a  reference,  in  an  issue  in  order 
to  go  into  his  own  evidence ;  it  will  not  give  a  party  such  an  op- 
portunity to  tamper  with  witnesses. 

And  as  for  a  trial  by  jury,  your  honours  might  as  well  order  a 
jury  trial  in  an  account  cause.  This  would  be  a  glorious  cause 
for  a  trial  by  jury,  and  much  certainty,  to  be  sure,  would  be  ob- 
tained by  it.  The  case  now  before  the  court  is  a  question  of 
trust,  which  more  than  any  other,  it  is  the  province  of  this  court 
to  decide,  it  is  bound  to  decide  it,  and  will  never  yield  that  right 
in  order  to  have  it  tried  by  a  jury.  The  gentlemen  have  relied 
on  the  case  in  Dow,  but  that  does  not  sustain  them.  That  was 
an  appeal  from  a  court  in  Scotland,  and  from  the  record  and 
pleadings  sent  up,  it  did  not  appear  upon  what  ground  the  decision 
had  been  made.  When  the  case  came  before  the  House  of  Lords, 
they  ordered  the  cause  sent  back  because  it  did  not  appear  upon 
what  ground  the  court  had  delivered  its  opinion.     There  was  no 


68 

reference  to  a  master,  no  trial  by  jury  ordered,  but  the  cause  was 
referred  back  to  the  court,  to  state  the  ground  of  their  decision. 
In  3  Merivale,  412,  which  the  gentleman  also  cited,  the  court 
referred  it  to  a  master  to  ascertain  the  religious  opinions  of  the 
congregation  ;  but  it  was  done  by  consent  of  parties ;  the  ques- 
tion then  came  before  the  Lord  Chancellor  upon  bill  and  an- 
swer, and  upon  a  motion  to  dissolve  the  injunction  which  had 
been  granted  ;  the  court  there  had  granted  the  injunction,  but 
in  order  that  a  speedy  decision  might  be  had,  and  to  avoid  the 
delay  which  might  otherwise  occur,  referred  it  by  consent  of  par- 
ties to  a  master,  to  ascertain  what  were  the  religious  opinions  of 
the  congregation  at  the  time  of  building  the  church.  There  could 
have  been,  in  the  then  stage  of  the  cause,  no  such  reference  with- 
out the  consent  of  parties.  I  trust  therefore  that  this  court  will 
themselves  decide  this  question,  which  will  be  most  advantageous 
to  the  parties,  to  the  public,  and  to  the  cause  of  religion.  In  the 
case  in  Dessausure,  to  which  I  have  already  referred  your  ho- 
nours, although  there  was  great  difficulty  in  deciding  what  the 
facts  were,  yet  the  court  ordered  no  reference,  but  decided  the 
cause,  and  I  trust  this  court  will  pursue  the  same  course. 

Before  I  come  to  consider  the  evidence,  I  will  take  notice  of 
another  subject  or  two,  which  have  been  presented  here  by  the 
adverse  counsel.  We  have  heard  much  from  them  respecting 
the  friendly  feelings,  and  generosity  of  the  "  Hicksite"  party,  and 
of  their  willingness  to  divide  the  property,  according  to  the  num- 
bers of  the  respective  parties.  It  is  certainly  very  kind  in  them, 
to  want  to  divide  with  us,  property  which  belongs  to  us,  and  to 
which  they  have  no  right.  But  would  the  court  divide  a  trust 
fund,  which  had  been  raised  for  a  specific  purpose,  even  if  both 
parties  were  agreed  to  the  division  ?  No  ;  this  could  not  be. 
This  court  would  never  suffer  it.  This  trust  was  created  for 
one  religious  meeting,  and  would  the  court  divert  it,  or  permit  it 
to  be  diverted  from  the  object  for  which  it  was  intended,  and 
give  it  to  two  religious  meetings,?  The  court  cannot  divert  the 
trust  from  its  original  purpose;  it  would  be  a  breach  of  faith,  and 
of  every  principle  of  equity,  to  suffer  it  to  be  so  divided.  The  ad- 
verse party  have  changed  their  religious  opinions,  and  their 
supreme  head  ;  but  they  are  welcome  to  return,  if  they  choose,  to 
their  original  principles,  and  to  participate  again  in  the  property. 


69 

They  make  no  complaint  against  the  "  Orthodox"  party,  in  the 
Chesterfield  preparative  meeting,  they  do  not  allege  that  they 
have  changed  their  opinions.  Where  then,  I  would  ask,  is  the 
generosity  of  their  ofTer  to  divide,  when  the  property  is  of  a  na- 
ture not  to  be  divided,  and  to  which,  I  will  not  say,  they  have 
forfeited  all  right,  but  I  may  say,  over  which  they  have  lost 
all  control?  What  is  to  become  of  the  meeting  houses  in  case  of 
such  a  division  ?  Are  they  to  be  cut  in  sunder,  and  a  portion 
given  to  each  party  ?  Where  will  this  doctrine  lead  to  1  If  ano- 
ther division  of  the  society  takes  place,  there  must  be  another  di- 
vision of  the  property,  and  another,  and  another.  Will  the  court 
sanction  a  principle  involving  such  consequences  as  these  ?  Ne- 
ver :  it  will  look  to  the  object  of  the  trust,  and  see  that  it  is  strict- 
ly applied  to  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  originally  intended.  It 
is  enough  for  me  to  say,  that  in  the  present  stage  of  this  cause, 
the  court  cannot  make  the  decision  which  they  ask,  it  will  not 
take  the  responsibility  of  dividing  this  property. 

Another  idea  was  thrown  out,  doubtless  for  the  audience,  more 
than  for  the  ear  of  the  court ;  they  allege  that  we  brought  them 
into  court,  and  by  so  doing,  have  violated  the  principle  of  Friends 
against  going  to  law  with  each  other.  We  deny  the  charge. 
We  say  that  if  they  are  brought  here  it  is  to  be  attributed  to 
their  own  act,  and  it  is  the  consequence  of  their  own  intermed- 
dling, in  that  in  which  they  had  no  right  to  interfere.  The 
original  bill  was  filed  by  Hendrickson  against  Shotwell  to  com- 
pel him  to  pay  the  money  secured  by  the  mortgage ;  Decow,  who 
represents  the  "  Hicksite"  party  then  interferes,  and  tells  Shot- 
well  that  Hendrickson  is  removed  from  his  office,  as  treasurer  to 
the  fund,  that  he  (Decow)  is  the  person  entitled  to  the  monev, 
and  gives  him  formal  notice  that  it  nr.ust  be  paid  to  him,  and  not 
to  Hendrickson  ;  Shotwell  is  then  compelled  for  his  own  protection 
to  file  his  bill  of  interpleader.  Have  they  then  any  ground  for 
charging  us  with  bringing  them  into  court,  when  they  voluntari- 
ly thrust  themselves  before  it  ?  If  there  be  any  thing  in  the  charge 
it  must  rest  upon  them.  Havew-e  committed  any  breach  of  our 
principles?  l\o,  we  have  not.  At  the  time  of  filing  Hendrickson 's 
bill,  Shotwell  was  not  a  member  of  either  meeting,  nor  had  he 
been  for  a  long  time  previous.  There  was  then  nothing  impro- 
per in  the  commencement  of  this  suit  by  Hendrickson  against 


70 

Sholwell,  and  if  there  has  been  any  thing  improper  since,  it  is 
owing  to  Decow  himself,  and  the  party  for  whom  he  acts.  Having 
thus  endeavoured  to  remove  out  of  the  way,  these  several  matters, 
which,  1  conceive,  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  real  subject  of  this 
controversy,  1  shall  now  endeavour  to  maintain  two  general 
propositions. 

First,  That  the  "  Hicksite"  party  have  separated  themselves 
from  the  preparative  meeting  of  Friends  of  Chesterfield,  and 
attached  themselves  to  a  new  yearly  meeting  as  their  supreme 
"head,  and  thus  become  separatists,  and  as  such,  have  ceased  to 
have  any  right  to  the  fund  in  question.  Second,  That  they  have 
changed  their  religious  opinions  and  do  not  hold  to  the  doctrines 
of  the  society  of  Friends,  as  maintained  and  professed  by  them 
from  the  beginning,  and  at  the  time  this  fund  was  created;  that 
they  have  adopted  new  doctrines,  and  become  a  new  sect. 

If  I  can  sustain  either  of  these  propositions,  we  must  succeed 
in  this  cause,  and  I  am  greatly  mistaken,  if  I  do  not  support 
both.  In  maintaining  these  po^itions,  1  hope  at  the  same  time, 
to  prove  that  the  "Orthodox"  party  are  the  true  preparative 
meeting  of  Chesterfield,  and  adhere  to  the  doctrines  of  f)rimitive 
Friends.  And  I  shall  afterwards  undertake  to  show  the  legal 
consequences  arising  out  of  the  separation  or  secession  of  the 
"  Hicksite"  party. 

First :  The  "  Hicksite"  party  are  separatists  and  seceders  ;  they 
have  separated  themselves  from  the  liead  of  their  church,  the 
ancient  yearly  meeting  in  Philadelphia,  and  from  the  society  to 
which  they  originally  belonged.  The  parties  before  the  court 
claiming  the  control  of  this  fund,  cannot  both  be  the  same  pre- 
parative meeting,  they  have  no  connection  with  each  other. 
There  is  no  bond  of  union  between  them.  One  must  be  the  true 
preparative  meeting  of  Chesterfield,  and  the  other  a  counterfeit, 
a  spurious  meeting.  Both  are  not  entitled  to  that  character; 
which  then  of  these  parties  is  the  real,  and  which  the  counterfeit 
meeting  1  which  has  ceased  to  sustain  the  character  of  the 
original  meeting  ? 

Before  this  terrible  schism  took  place  in  the  society,  the 
Quakers  throughout  the  world,  considered  themselves  as  one  reli- 
gious body,  as  a  united  whole.  To  use  the  language  of  one  of 
the  witnesses,  they  were  a  unit.     It  is  true  they  were  divided 


71 

into  several  communities,  and  at  the  head  of  these  several  com- 
munities, arc  the  yearly  meetings.  These  yearly  meetings  were 
to  a  certain  extent,  independent  of  each  other,  but  still  they 
always  looked  upon  each  other  as  brethren,  and  united  in  har- 
mony. A  correspondence  was  constantly  maintained  between 
them,  and  they  were  ever  ready  to  assist  each  other  when 
occasion  required  it.  The  yearly  meeting  at  Philadelphia  was 
that  to  which  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  was  attached. 
The  discipline  of  this  yearly  meeting  describes  the  connexion  and 
subordination  of  its  constituent  meetings  in  these  words: 

"  The  connection  and  subordination  of  our  meetings  for  disci- 
pline are  thus:  preparative  meetings  are  accountable  to  the 
monthly,  monthly  to  the  quarterly,  and  the  quarterly  to  the 
yearly  meeting :  So  that  if  the  yearly  meeting  be  at  any  time 
dissatisfied  with  the  proceedings  of  any  inferior  meeting ;  or  a 
quarterly  meeting  with  the  proceedings  of  either  of  its  monthly 
meetings,  or  a  monthly  meeting  with  the  proceedings  of  either  of 
its  preparative  meetings ;  such  meeting  or  meetings,  ought  with 
readiness  and  meekness  to  render  an  account  thereof  when 
required." — Book  of  Discipline,  p.  31.  Ed.  1806. 

In  conformity  with  this  organization,  the  preparative  meeting 
at  Chesterfield  was  a  constituent  branch  of  and  subordinate  to  the 
Chesterfield  monthly  meeting :  that  monthly  meeting,  of  the 
Burlington  quarterly  meeting,  and  the  Burlington  quarter,  of  the 
Philadelphia  yearly  meeting.  It  appears  from  the  evidence, 
that  the  separation  which  first  occurred,  took  place  in  the  head 
of  the  society,  in  the  yearly  meeting.  We  must  therefore  look 
there,  to  see  what  was  done  to  produce  the  separation,  in  order 
that  we  may  form  a  correct  opinion  as  to  what  has  transpired 
since.  As  the  division  begun  in  the  head,  and  subsequently  took 
place  in  the  branches,  and  as  the  branches  have  attached  them- 
selves to  different  heads,  they  must  consequently  stand  or  fall 
with  the  head  to  which  they  have  attached  themselves.  If  those 
who  separated  from  the  original  head,  and  absolved  themselves 
from  its  authority,  and  formed  a  new  supreme  head,  are  seceders, 
are  separatists,  then  all  those  in  the  subordinate  branches  who 
have  attached  themselves  to  those  seceders,  and  to  that  new 
head,  are  seceders  also ;  seceders  from  their  head,  and  seceders 
from  their  original  principles.     The  "  Hicksites"  say,  that  they 


72 

are  the  original  yearly  meeting  reorganized  and  continued.  We 
deny  it ;  we  say  that  (hey  are  a  new  society,  a  new  meeting, 
totally  distinct  from  and  unconnected  with  the  former  one,  with 
the  one,  and  the  only  one,  recognized  in  the  discipline.  If  they 
can  show  that  they  are  a  continuation  of  this  meeting,  and  that 
they  adhere  (o  the  original  principles  of  Quakerism,  they  sustain 
their  case ;  but  if  we  prove  that  they  are  not  a  continuance  of 
it,  but  have  abjured  it,  and  absolved  themselves  from  its  autho- 
rity, and  that  they  assume  to  be  what  they  are  not,  they  must 
then  fail.  Whether  they  are  a  new  yearly  meeting  or  whether 
they  are  separatists,  must  depend  upon  another  question.  Was 
the  original  meeting  merged  or  destroyed,  when  the  new  meeting 
was  formed  ?  If  it  was  not,  then  the  latter  can  have  no  claim 
or  pretence,  to  being  a  reorganization  and  continuance  of  it. 
The  gentleman  on  the  opposite  side,  put  the  question  this  morn- 
ing on  this  ground,  and  here  I  am  ready  to  meet  him.  He  con- 
tended that  the  original  meeting  was  put  an  end  to,  and  that  their 
new  yearly  meeting  was  merely  a  reorganization  of  the  old  one. 
This  is  an  important  point,  and  perhaps  may  be  a  turning  one, 
especially  if  there  should  be  any  great  and  serious  difficulty  in 
ascertaining  the  doctrines  of  the  respective  parties.  I  shall 
therefore  examine  it  carefully. 

It  appears  from  the  evidence  before  the  court,  that  the  yearly 
meeting  of  April  1827,  at  which  the  separation  took  place,  met 
regularly,  transacted  the  usual  business,  and  after  they  had  got 
through  that  business,  regularly  adjourned  to  the  following  year  ; 
and  that  they  have  regularly  met  at  the  stated  period  and  at  the 
same  place,  and  as  the  same  yearly  meeting,  from  that  time  down 
to  the  present.  If  that  yearly  meeting  has  been  put  an  end  to, 
if  it  is  extinguished  or  destroyed,  it  must  be  by  some  act  done  at 
that  yearly  meeting,  or  by  some  act  previously  performed.  Any 
thing  subsequently  done  cannot  eifect  its  existence.  This  leads 
me  to  enquire,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  how  the  separation  took 
place,  what  occurred  at  that  meeting,  which  the  gentleman  can 
rely  upon  as  a  ground  for  destroying  the  original  yearly  meeting. 
But  before  I  examine  what  then  passed,  permit  me  to  advert  to 
the  course  previously  pursued  by  the  "  Hicksite"  party.  Much, 
it  is  alleged,  had  transpired  to  produce  dissatisfaction  and  discord 
among  the  members,  and  even  before  that  yearly  meeting  of  1827 


73 

assembled,  a  separation  was  contemplated  by  the  party  who 
afterwards  withdrew,  unless  they  could  obtain  the  ascendency. 
They  meant  to  obtain  that  ascendency  if  they  could,  but  if  they 
failed  in  etTecting  that  purpose,  then  they  were  determined  to 
separate.  This  clearly  appears  from  the  evidence  of  Halliday 
Jackson,  one  of  their  own  witnesses.  Previous  to  the  session  of 
that  yearly  meeting,  John  Comly,  who  was  the  arch  mover  of  all 
this  business  of  separation,  under  pretence  of  a  religious  visit,  had 
gone  through  the  country,  to  prepare  the  minds  of  their  party  to 
come  forward  and  make  a  struggle  in  the  yearly  meeting,  holding 
out  the  idea  of  the  separation,  if  that  struggle  should  prove  abor- 
tive. See  2nd  vol.  of  Depositions,  p.  58,  .59,  and  108  to  119. 
The  great  difficulty  in  the  way  of  these  disorganizers  appears  to 
have  been,  the  meeting  for  sufTerings,  and  the  meetings  of  min- 
isters and  elders,  and  from  the  testimony  of  this  witness,  it  seems, 
that  the  party  wished  to  procure  such  changes  in  the  discipline 
of  the  society,  as  should  place  those  meetings  under  their  own 
control  and  power.  1  shall  hereafter  notice  the  disputes,  which 
had  arisen  in  the  society,  respecting  those  meetings,  and  show 
that  they  all  arose  out  of  the  opposition  made  to  the  doctrines 
of  Elias  Hicks.  The  discontents  arising  from  this  cause  had  de- 
termined his  adherents  to  make  a  great  struggle  in  1827,  and  one 
part  of  their  plan,  it  seems,  was  to  increase  the  number  of  repre- 
sentatives to  the  yearly  meeting  from  certain  quarters.  The 
"Hicksite"  party  had  a  decided  majority  in  Bucks,  Abington, 
and  the  Southern  quarters.  In  Bucks  and  Abington,  they  accord- 
ingly doubled  their  representation,  and  in  the  southern,  they 
increased  it  from  ten  to  fifteen.  The  other  party  made  no  pre- 
paration for  the  struggle.  In  this  state  of  things,  the  yearly 
meeting  took  place.  The  first  controversy  arose  respecting  the 
choice  of  clerk,  who  it  seems  is  a  very  important  officer  in  their 
meetings.  The  nomination  of  clerk  rests  with  the  representa- 
tives. At  the  close  of  the  first  setting,  the  representatives  con- 
vened for  the  purpose  of  making  a  nomination.  Two  persons 
were  put  on  nomination,  Samuel  Bettle  and  John  Comly.  The 
gentleman  said,  this  morning,  that  Samuel  Bettle  was  the  last 
person  in  the  world,  who  should  have  been  put  on  nomination ;  he 
should  have  made  one  exception,  he  should  have  excepted  John 
Comly.     Previous  to  the  yearly  meeting,  he  had  been  round  the 


74 

country  caucussing.  This  was  called  by  him  and  the  party, 
"  holding  conferences,"  but  by  whatever  name  it  is  called,  the 
object  of  it  was  to  prepare  the  minds  of  his  friends  for  the  struggle, 
and  for  the  approaching  separation.  If  the  representatives  had 
submitted  to  his  nomination,  the  result  may  readily  be  seen.  A 
contest  ensued  among  the  representatives,  each  party  insisting 
on  their  own  clerk;  the  "  Hicksite"  party  contended  that  they 
had  a  majority  for  Comly,  while  the  others  insisted  that  Samuel 
Bettle  was  the  most  suitable  man  for  the  station.  It  seems  that 
the  society  of  Friends  are  not  in  the  habit  of  taking  or  counting 
votes  in  any  of  their  deliberations.  It  was  impossible  to  say 
therefore  on  which  side  the  majority  was.  The  clamour  made 
there  cannot  settle  this  question,  and  there  was  no  other  test  to 
which  it  was  brought.  A.s  no  decision  could  be  efi'ected  by  the 
representatives,  what  was  to  be  done?  Was  the  yearly  meeting 
to  stop,  or  was  some  other  course  to  be  adopted  t  The  meeting 
unquestionably  had  a  right  to  take  the  nomination  into  its  own 
hands.  When  the  representatives  returned  to  the  meeting  in 
the  afternoon,  John  Cox,  one  of  their  number,  reported  that  they 
could  not  agree  on  a  nomination.  There  is  a  variety  of  evidence 
upon  this  point,  some  say  that  the  representatives  were  to  meet 
again,  and  that  John  Cox  was  not  authorised  to  make  such  report. 
But  this  is  entirely  immaterial.  It  is  not  denied  that  he  did 
make  such  report,  or  that  no  person  was  agreed  on  by  the  repre- 
sentatives. The  question  then  necessarily  came  before  the 
yearly  meeting,  and  there  a  struggle  was  made  by  the  "  Hicksite" 
party  to  prevent  Bettle  from  acting,  but  no  other  person  was  put 
in  nomination  by  the  meeting.  When  it  was  found  that  the  re- 
presentatives were  not  likely  to  harmonise  and  agree  upon  the 
clerk,  an  elderly  member  of  the  meeting,  observed,  that  he  had 
been  accustomed  to  the  business  for  many  years,  and  that  it  had 
always  been  the  practice,  that  until  a  new  clerk  was  appointed, 
the  old  one  should  serve.  This  quieted  the  meeting.  Bettle  took 
his  seat  and  acted,  and  all  opposition  was  withdrawn;  here  then 
was  unanimity.  That  these  were  the  facts  of  the  case,  I  refer  to 
the  testimony  of  Samuel  Bettle,  vol.  1st  of  Evidence,  p.  68;  Jo- 
seph Whitall,  vol.  I.  p.  217  ;  and  Thomas  Evans,  voh  I.  p.  265. 
There  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  to  the  contrary.  What  can 
be  more  decisive  upon  this  point,  than  the  fact  of  Comly's  taking 


75 

his  place, at  the  table  as  assistant  clerk.  He  showed  some  hesita- 
tion at  first,  but  when  the  appointment  of  Bettle  was  acquiesced 
in  by  the  meeting,  he  (Comly)  took  his  place  at  the  table  and 
acted  as  his  assistant  through  the  whole  week.  It  is  singular 
indeed  that  it  should  now  be  contended,  that  this  appointment  of 
clerk  was  such  an  act  of  domination  as  dissolved  the  meeting, 
when  they  themselves  acquiesced  in  it,  and  continued  their  attend- 
ance during  the  whole  of  that  meeting.  This  is  not  all ;  on  the 
next  morning  an  attempt  was  made  to  dissolve  the  yearly  meeting. 
John  Comly  rose  in  his  place,  and  stated  that  he  felt  conscientious 
scruples  under  existing  circumstances  against  acting  as  assistant 
clerk.  He  alluded  to  the  excitement  which  prevailed,  and  the 
feelings  with  which  they  had  come  together,  and  finally  proposed 
that  the  meeting  should  adjourn  indefinitely.  Here  was  an  insi- 
dious attempt  to  dissolve  the  meeting:  it  was  proposed  to  adjourn, 
not  until  next  year,  nor  to  any  given  time,  but  indefinitely.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  this  was  a  preconcerted  thing  ;  an  effort  to 
dissolve  the  meeting,  in  order  that  their  own  plans  might  be  more 
successfully  carried  into  effect.  That  this  measure  was  concerted 
between  Comly,  and  the  junto  with  which  he  acted,  I  refer  to 
the  testimony  of  Thomas  Evans,  vol.  I.  of  Ev.  p.  269.  The  meet- 
ing however  refused  to  adjourn  ;  many  of  the  "  Hicksites"  them- 
selves opposed  it,  and  urged  Comly  to  act  as  assistant  clerk,  and 
that  the  meeting  should  proceed  with  its  business;  and  Comly 
again  took  his  seat  at  the  table  and  acted  as  assistant  clerk :  under 
these  circumstances  then,  can  the  adverse  party  pretend,  that 
there  was  no  regular  clerk,  or  that  the  meeting  was  dissolved, 
when  the  meeting  refused  to  adjourn  ;  when  they  themselves 
acquiesced  in  its  proceedings  and  remained  during  the  whole  meet- 
ing, until  seventh  day.  If  the  meeting  was  dissolved,  as  they 
contend,  those  gentlemen  should  have  withdrawn  immediately, 
and  if  they  had  had  the  majority  and  gone  on  and  set  up  their 
yearly  meeting  at  once,  there  might  then  have  been  some  pre- 
tence to  a  reorganization.  But  after  acquiescing  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  clerk,  refusing  to  adjourn  indefinitely,  continuing  their 
attendance  at  the  meeting,  from  sitting  to  sitting,  and  participat- 
ing in  the  transaction  of  its  business,  until  its  regular  adjournment 
to  the  succeeding  year,  this  pretence  is  certainly  most  extraor- 
dinary and  futile.     Who  can  believe  that  if  Comly,  who  planned 


76 

that  struggle,  had  believed  the  meeting  to  be  dissolved,  he  would 
have  remained  there  during  the  whole  meeting,  and  continued  to 
act  as  the  assistant  clerk ! 

We  have  heard  a  vast  deal  about  the  democratic  principle  of 
the  majority  governing  in  all  religious  meetings,  and  in  this  year- 
ly meeting  as  well  as  others.  The  gentleman  who  preceded  me 
spent  much  time  upon  this  point;  and  no  doubt  his  clients  are 
deeply  indebted  to  him  for  the  discoveries  he  has  made.  He  has 
discovered,  it  seems,  but  where  I  know  not,  that  the  society  of 
Friends  has  always  acted  upon  the  principle  of  majorities,  and 
that  this  is  the  true  principle  for  them  to  act  on.  But  will  the 
gentleman  pretend  that  it  has  ever  been  the  practice  of  the 
society  to  elect  its  officers  by  ballot;  or  that  there  was  ever  such 
a  thing  known  in  any  of  its  meetings  as  a  countof  members  or  a 
vote  taken?  Such  a  thing  is  not  pretended  even  by  the  wit- 
nesses on  their  own  side  ;  nor  can  an  instance  of  it  be  produc- 
ed from  the  whole  history  of  the  society. 

The  clerk,  it  is  admitted  by  all  parties,  is  a  very  important 
officer  in  the  yearly  meeting,  and  in  all  their  inferior  meetings. 
He  must  be  a  man  of  decision  of  character,  of  respectabiHty,  of 
piety,  and  one  in  whom  the  meetings  have  confidence.  Samuel 
Bettle  had  been  clerk  of  the  yearly  meeting  for  many  years, 
had  served  it  acceptably,  and  continued  to  do  so  until  this  unfor- 
tunate controversy  respecting  Elias  Hicks  arose.  When  the 
meeting  then  finally  came  to  an  acquiescence  in  the  appointment 
of  Mr.  Bettle,  what  was  that  but  coming  to  a  conclusion  accord- 
ing to  the  rules  of  the  society?  The  society  do  not  go  upon  the 
ground  that  every  man  coming  into  a  meeting  stands  upon  the 
same  footing.  In  town  meetings,  this  principle  prevails ;  but 
would  it  be  a  proper  or  a  prudent  course  to  take  in  religious 
meetings,  where  every  member  of  the  community  may  come? 
The  society  would  never  have  existed  to  this  day,  if  it  had  act- 
ed upon  this  principle.  The  clerk  in  obtaining  the  sense  of  the 
meeting,  takes  into  consideration  the  age,  experience,  respecta- 
bility and  weight  of  character  of  the  speakers.  Men  of  age,  of 
long  tried  experience,  and  of  known  piety,  would  be  entitled  to 
more  weight  and  consideration,  than  the  opinions  of  men  young 
and  thoughtless  ;  men  without  any  religious  character  or  stand- 
ing.    When  the  clerk  has  taken  what  he  believes  to  be  the  sense 


77 

of  the  meeting,  if  the  meeting  does  not  acquiesce  therein,  then 
is  the  time  for  complaint,  and  not  aflericards.  But  in  the  case 
before  us,  the  meeting  did  acquiesce  in  the  appointment  of  Mr. 
Bettle  as  clerk,  and  did  proceed  to  transact  the  regular  business 
of  the  meeting.  Even  supposing,  however,  that  the  clerk  was 
forced  upon  the  meeting,  will  it  be  contended  that  that  act  did, 
or  could,  dissolve  the  yearly  meeting?  Such  a  pretence  would 
be  absurd.  Those  who  were  discontented,  if  such  there  were, 
had  their  remedy.  They  might  have  withdrawn  immediately, 
and  set  up  for  themselves.  Observe  the  difference  between  their 
conduct  and  that  of  the  "  Orthodox**  in  Burlington  quarterly 
meeting,  and  in  the  monthly  and  preparative  meeting  of  Chester- 
field. When  they  discovered  that  persons  were  present  who 
had  no  right  to  be  there,  and  who  would  not  withdraw,  and  that 
a  part  of  the  meeting  were  determined  to  secede  from  their  for- 
mer connexion,  and  attach  themselves  to  the  new  head,  they 
adjourned  their  meeting,  and  left  the  house  in  peace.  They  did 
not  remain  to  occasion  trouble  and  disturbance.  Why  did  not 
the  "  Hicksite"  party  in  the  yearly  meeting  take  the  same 
course?  They  would  then  have  had  some  ground  for  the  alle- 
gation that  their  meeting  is  a  reorganization  and  continuance  of 
the  regular,  established  yearly  meeting  of  Friends  in  Philadel- 
phia. But  having  acquiesced  in  the  appointment  of  the  clerk, 
having  remained  there  and  taken  part  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
yearly  meeting,  until  its  close,  they  cannot  now  object  to  that 
appointment,  nor  contend  that  it  dissolved  the  yearly  meeting. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  every  community,  a  religious 
community  as  well  as  any  other,  may  adopt  its  own  rules  for  de- 
termining questions  that  come  before  it.  Is  the  democratic  prin- 
ciple that  a  majority  prevails,  so  strong  and  powerful  that  a  re- 
ligious body  can  adopt  no  other  ?  Cannot  Friends  take  their  own 
course  for  settling  subjects  which  come  under  discussion  in  their 
meetings  ?  The  opposite  counsel  would  seem  to  hold  out  the 
idea  that  the  majority  must  always  be  the  test ;  but  if  a  society 
has  adopted  another  principle,  will  this  court  dissent  from  it,  and 
attempt  to  set  up  another?  No.  Every  society  has  a  right  to 
adopt  their  own  principle,  and  the  court  will  leave  them  to  act 
upon  it ;  or  if  they  do  not  choose  to  continue  that  mode,  to  adopt 
another  at  their  pleasure.     The  society  of  Friends  then,  have 


78 

adopted  another  mode  of  settling  questions,  and  it  is  not  for  this 
court,  or  any  other,  to  change  it  for  them.  It  is  in  vain  there- 
fore to  talk  about  majorities,  or  to  enquire  on  which  side  was 
the  greater  number  of  speakers.  All  the  witnesses  on  both  sides 
admit,  that  this  never  was  the  practice  of  the  society,  but  that 
they  waited  in  solemn  silence  until  they  all  acquiesced,  or  until 
all  opposition  ceased.  Silence  then  having  been  restored  after 
the  appointment  of  Mr.  Bettle,  and  all  parties  having  acquiesced, 
he  was  duly  appointed  even  upon  their  own  principles:  and  I 
beg  the  court  to  recollect,  that  he  was  the  only  person  nominat- 
ed to  the  meeting  for  clerk :  Comly  was  not  even  put  on  nomi- 
nation there. 

Where  is  the  evidence,  I  would  ask,  of  their  having  the  majo- 
rity which  they  allege  ?  If  they  meant  to  rely  on  that  fact,  they 
ought  to  have  made  it  out ;  but  they  have  made  out  no  such 
fact.  They  have  called  several  witnesses  to  prove  that  John 
Comly  was  nominated  before  the  representatives,  and  that  there 
was,  in  the  opinion  of  the  witnesses,  a  majority  there  in  his  fa- 
vour. But  was  there  any  thing  done  from  which  they  could  form 
that  opinion  ?  There  was  nothing  ;  there  was  neither  a  vote 
taken,  nor  a  count  of  members  made.  When  they  returned  into 
the  yearly  meeting,  it  is  not  pretended  that  they  had  a  majority 
for  Comly,  for  he  was  not  even  nominated  there.  There  cannot 
therefore  remain  a  question  as  to  Ihe  regularity  of  Bettle's  ap- 
pointment. 

But  will  the  court  go  into  the  enquiry  whether  he  was  duly 
appointed  or  not  '.  It  is  not  relevant  to  this  cause.  He  was  clerk 
de  facto.  Will  the  court  enquire  whether  he  was  clerk  de  jvre  ? 
He  w'as  elected  ;  will  the  court  undertake  to  s;iy  he  was  not 
diil'i  elected?  He  was  the  acting  derk.  Will  the  court  under- 
take to  say  whether  his  apjunntnu-nt  was  proper?  I  think  not. 
The  court  will  take  the  facts  as  ihey  rind  them,  and  rinding 
Samuel  Bc.'ttle  clei'k  dn  facto,  it  is  suriicient  for  their  purpose. 

The  point  we  insist  u})on  is,  that  even  adntitting  the  objections 
of  the  opposite  counsel  in  their  utmost  latitude,  there  was  not 
that  irregularity  in  the  appointment  of  clerk,  or  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  meeting,  which  could  destroy  the  legal  existence  of 
the  meeting.  If  therefore  the  court  should  even  doubt  whether 
he  was  regularly  appointed,  which  I  apprehend  they  cannot, 


79 

will  they  undertake  to  say  that  that  irregularity  dissolved  the 
meeting  ?  That  could  not  be  said  without  going  contrary  to  the 
sense  of  every  nnan  who  took  part  in  the  deliberations  of  that 
assembly- 
There  is  another  ground  of  complaint  on  which  they  rely.  It 
is  said,  that  a  number  of  important  questions  were  not  acted 
upon  by  that  yearly  meeting.  It  is  true  that  there  were  such 
questions  brought  before  that  meeting ;  but  they  had  all  grown 
out  of  the  controversy  respecting  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks, 
and  they  were  disposed  of  by  general,  I  might  almost  say,  by 
universal  consent.  Some  were  postponed,  and  some  referred 
back  to  the  meetings  from  which  they  came.  But  supposing 
they  were  not  acted  on,  it  vs^as  a  conclusion  come  to  by  univer- 
sal consent,  the  meeting  therefore  could  not  have  been  dissolved 
by  that  cause.  The  meeting  had  an  undoubted  right  either  to 
act  upon  then),  or  to  defer  acting  on  them.  Even  if  their  pro- 
ceedings in  these  cases  had  been  irregularly  postponed,  it  could 
not  have  dissolved  the  meeting.  If  it  had  been  thought  best  not 
to  act  at  all  upon  the  business,  at  that  time,  on  account  of  the 
excitement  which  prevailed,  the  fact  of  their  not  having  acted 
on  them,  could  not  put  an  end  to  the  yearly  meeting. 

Another  measure  complained  of  is  the  appointment  of  what  is 
called  the  yearly  meeting's  committee.  It  appears  that  upon 
the  last  day  of  the  meeting,  on  seventh  day,  (Saturday)  morn- 
ing,  a  proposition  came  from  the  women's  meeting  to  appoint  a 
committee  for  the  purpose  of  visiting  the  quarterly  and  monthly 
meetings.  All  the  witnesses  admit  that  the  appointment  of  such 
committees  was  in  the  regular  order  of  the  society,  and  that 
under  other  circumstances  than  those  which  then  existed,  could 
not  have  been  objectionable.  It  seems  however  that  when  the 
proposal  was  made,  an  objection  was  raised  to  it  by  the  discon- 
tented party.  But  after  it  had  been  some  time  under  discussion, 
all  opposition  was  finally  withdrawn,  and  it  passed  with  great 
unanimity.  These  then  are  all  the  acts  complained  of  at  that 
yearly  meeting ;  and  now  I  would  enquire,  whether,  upon  their 
own  ground,  there  is  a  single  act  alleged  which  could  extinguish 
and  destroy  that  original  meeting.  The  court  will  see  that  at 
that  time  there  was  no  idea  entertained  that  that  meeting  was 
dissolved.     It  was  an  after-thought,  adopted  by  the  party,  but 


80 

which  never  originated  with  themselves.  I  will  refer  the  court 
for  a  history  of  the  separation  to  the  evidence  of  Halliday  Jack- 
son. He  is  one  of  that  party,  and  an  active  man  in  the  separation, 
and  therefore  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  any  thing  he  details 
unfavourable  to  his  own  partj,  would  be  inlentionally  erroneous. 
He  gives  us  a  minute  statement  of  their  proceedings,  from  which 
it  appears  that  before  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  1827  convened, 
John  Comly  had  opened  to  him  (Jackson)  a  prospect  of  this  sep- 
aration. It  further  appears  that  u]»on  fourth  day  evening,  of  the 
yearly  meeting  week,  a  junto  of  about  twenty  got  together  in  a 
private  house,  and  there  concluded  to  dissolve  their  connexion 
wath  the  original  yearly  meeting.  The  separation  was  then 
agreed  upon,  and  a  plan  contrived  for  carrying  it  into  effect.  A 
committee  was  appointed  from  among  themselves  to  draft  an  ad- 
dress, and  they  then  adjourned  to  fifth  day  evening,  at  the  Green 
street  meeting  house.  On  Thursday  (fifth  day)  evening,  as  ma- 
ny as  two  or  three  hundred  attended  there.  The  committee  of 
the  junto  had  prepared  an  address,  to  those  who  acted  with  them, 
which  was  read  and  considered,  and  they  then  adjourned  to 
meet  again,  on  sixth  day  evening.  These  proceedings  took 
place  during  the  yearly  meeting,  and  while  they  were  daily  at- 
tending its  sittings,  and  yet  they  now  aver  that  this  going  oif  or 
separation,  dissolved  that  meeting.  Upon  the  evening  of  sixth 
day,  it  does  not  appear,  that  I  recollect,  what  was  done,  but 
they  adjourned  to  meet  again  on  the  rising  of  the  yearly  meeting. 
What  was  this  but  a  recognition  of  the  existence  of  that  meeting, 
and  of  its  being  the  original  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia,  and 
an  acknowledgment  that  they  were  waiting  for  its  regular  ad- 
journment? No  idea  was  thrown  out,  or  entertained,  that  the 
meeting  was  to  be  reorganized,  but  simply  that  they  were  pre- 
paring to  withdraw  from  it ;  upon  seventh  day  morning,  after 
the  yearly  meeting  was  regularly  adjourned,  they  withdrew  from 
the  house,  and  went  to  Green  street  meeting  house,  not  as  the 
yearly  meeting,  for  that  had  adjourned  :  they  went  as  individuals, 
as  dissatisfied  men,  not  to  reorganize  the  old  yearly  meeting,  but 
to  make  a  new  and  distinct  meeting  for  themselves.  Upon  the 
morning  of  Saturday,  the  address  which  had  been  prepared  M^as 
again  read,  approved  of,  and  adopted ;  they  then  separated.  This 
address  was  their  manifesto  in  which  they  declared  the  cause  of 


81 

their  separation,  and  of  which  1  shall  speak  hereafter.     In  conse- 
quence of  this  address,  a  meeting  took  place  in  the  sixth  month 
following,  at  which  they  agreed  upon  and  issued  what  they  call 
an  epistle,  but  which  may,  I  think,  properly  be  denominated  their 
declaration  of  mdependence.     In  this  document  they  declare  their 
intention  of  separating,  and  call   upon  quarterly  and  monthly 
meetings,  which  may  be  prepared  for  such  a  measure,  and  upon 
individuals  in  unity  with  them  and  favourable   to  their  views,  to 
attend  in  Philadelphia  in  the  following  tenth  month,  for  the  pur- 
pose, as  they  say,  of  holding  a  yearly  meeting.  Is  there  any  thing 
in  this,  which  looks  like  an  idea  in  their  own  minds,  of  the  non- 
existence of  the  original  yearly  meeting,  or  that  it  did  not  con- 
tinue to  be  a  yearly  meeting,  as  much  so,  as  if  this  cabal  had  ne- 
ver got  together  ?  It  is  not  my  intention  to  occupy   much  of  the 
time  of  the  court  in  reading,  but  this  is  a  document  of  considera- 
ble importance,  and  I  must  beg  leave  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
court  to  some  parts  of  it.     It  is  the  Epistle  agreed  upon  by  the 
"  Hicksite"  party  in  sixth  month  (June,)  1827,  and  is  to  be  found 
in  2nd  vol.  of  Evidence,  456.     It  says,  "  We  therefore,  under  a 
solemn  and  weighty  sense  of  the  importance  of  this  concern,  and 
with  ardent  desires  that   all  our  movements  may  be  under  the 
guidance  of  Him  who  only  can  lead  us  in  safety,  have  agreed  to 
propose  for  your  consideration,  the  propriety  of  holding  a  yearly 
meeting  for  Friends  in  unity  with  us,  residing  within  the  limits 
of  those  quarterly  meetings,  heretofore  represented,  in  the  yearly 
meeting  held  in  Philadelphia,  for  which  purpose  it  is  recom- 
mended, that  quarterly  and  monthly  meetings  which  7/2 ay  Z>e;jre- 
pared  for  such  a  measure,  should  appoint  representatives  to  meet 
in  Philadelphia,  on  the  third  second  day  in  the  tenth  month  next, 
at  ten  o'clock  in  the  morning,  in  company  with  other  members 
favourable  to  our  views,  there  to  hold  a  yearly  meeting  of  men 
and  women  friends,"  &c. 

Not  one  word  is  here  said  about  reorganizing  or  continuing 
the  yearly  meeting  ;  but  the  invitation  given  is  simply  to  hold  a 
yearly  meeting.  And  to  whom  is  this  invitation  addressed  ?  If 
this  meeting  was  designed  as  a  continuance  of  the  original  yearly 
meeting,  should  not  the  address  have  been  to  all  the  members 
of  that  yearly  meeting  ?  If  they  meant  to  reorganize,  should  they 
not  have  called  upon  all  ?  Certainly  they  should ;  and  had  such  an 


82 

idea  then  been  entertained,  they  would  have  invited  all  the  mem- 
bers.    But  the  call  is  upon  those  only  who  are  prepared  for  the 
measure :  those  in  unity  with  them  and  favourable  to  their  views. 
Can  they  now  pretend  that  they  met  there  as  the  original  yearly 
meeting  of  Philadelphia,  and  only  for  the  purpose  of  reorganizing 
it,  when  their  own  epistle  expressly  states  that  their  meeting  was 
only  for  persons  in  unity  with  them  ?     This  document  shows 
that  they  had  no  thought  or  design  of  reorganizing.     In  their 
address  of  fourth  month,  they  talk  of  "  a  quiet  retreat."     What 
do  they  mean  by  this  expression  1     Do  they  mean  to  avow  an 
intention  of  overthrowing  the  original  yearly  meeting  ?     It  must 
require  something  more  than    a   quiet    retreat   to  effect  this. 
Could  any  one  understand  from  their  own  language,  anything 
else  than  that  they  meant  to  secede  and  set  up  for  themselves, 
to  declare  independence  of  the  original  meeting  ?     Mr.  Lower, 
and  Mr.  Halliday  Jackson,  both   their  own  witnesses,  place  it 
upon  the  true  ground.     They  call  it,  in  their  evidence,  a  revo- 
lution, and  such  it  was.     It  was  a  revolution,  a  secession.     We 
do  not  complain  of  this.     They  had  a  right  to  withdraw  from 
the  society  if  they  chose  to  do  so.     But  having  withdrawn,  and 
dissolved  their  connexion  with  it,  they  have  no  right  to  go  on 
with  the  view  of  overthrowing  the  existence    of   the   original 
yearly  meeting.     It  is  impossible  for  the  court  to  read  the  epistle, 
and  entertain  any  other  idea  than  that  which  I  have  stated. 
They  had  a  right  in  their  addresess  to  include  or  exclude  the 
"  Orthodox"  party,  as  they  thought  proper;  but  the  fact  of  their 
excluding  them  and  giving  the  invitation  in  the  manner  they  did, 
proves  conclusively  that  their  purpose  was  to  form  a  new  yearly 
meeting,  of  their  own  sort. 

The  court  will  observe  moreover  that  they  call  upon  quarterly 
and  monthly  meetings  which  may  be  prepared  for  the  measure, 
to  send  representatives  to  their  new  yearly  meeting.  The  wit- 
nesses all  agree  that  according  to  the  rules  of  the  society,  monthly 
meetings  cannot  send  representatives  to  the  yearly  meeting.  The 
members  in  their  individual  capacity,  may  attend  if  they  please, 
but  representatives  can  only  be  sent  by  the  quarters.  Here  was  a 
departure  from  the  discipline  and  established  order  of  the  society, 
making  the  constitution  of  the  new  meeting  different  from  the 
old  one.     How  do  they  justify  this  measure  't     Do  they  show  any 


83 

authority  for  it  ?  Does  this  little  book  (the  discipline)  which  the 
gentleman  has  held  up  to  the  court,  as  being  their  guide,  contain 
any  rule  authorizing  such  a  proceeding  ?  Xo  such  thing  is  to  be 
found  in  it.  We  have  heard  nouch  about  majorities,  and  of  their 
power;  but  if  a  majority  in  a  meeting  may  destroy  it,  may  take 
away  rights  which  are  vested  in  its  members,  this  is  certainly 
giving  the  question  of  majorities  a  power  and  importance  which 
it  never  had  before. 

The  "  Hicksite*'  party  thus  have  organized  a  new  yearly 
meeting  within  the  precincts  of  a  regularly  established  and  ex- 
isting yearly  meeting,  and  contrary  to  the  rules  of  the  society  of 
Friends.  They  say  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  are  similar 
to  those  under  which  the  original  yearly  meeting  was  established 
in  1681.  But  this  is  not  the  fact.  There  was  then  no  yearly 
meeting  existing  within  the  limits  over  which  the  proposed  yearly 
meeting  was  to  have  jurisdiction,  or  which  claimed  as  its  mem- 
bers the  persons  who  were  to  be  included  in  the  new  yearly  meet- 
ing. They  met  then,  not  wdthin  the  limits  of  another  yearly  meet- 
ing, but  where  no  yearly  meeting  had  yet  been  formed.  Monthly 
meetings  attached  probably  to  no  quarterly  meetings  ;  quarterly 
meetings,  and  friends  in  their  individual  capacities,  met  and 
formed  a  new  yearly  meeting.  But  even  then,  though  there  was 
DO  yearly  meeting  claiming  direct  jurisdiction  over  them,  they 
applied  to  other  yearly  meetings  then  existing  on  this  continent, 
for  their  consent  and  approbation,  before  they  established  the  new 
meeting.  Decow  in  his  answer  states  that  the  yearly  meeting 
formed  at  Burlington  in  1681  originated  from  a  monthly  meeting. 
What  did  the  "Hicksite"  yearly  meeting  originate  from?  ZS'ot 
from  any  regular  or  established  meeting  of  the  society,  but  from 
a  junto,  which  met  at  a  private  house,  agreed  on  a  separation 
from  an  existing  yearly  meeting,  and  adopted  measures  to  carry 
that  separation  into  effect.  There  is  then  nothing  similar  in  the 
two  cases ;  there  is  nothing  to  be  found  in  the  establishment  of 
the  yearly  meeting  in  1681,  w^hich  can  justify  the  course  pursued 
by  the  "  Hicksite"  party  in  1827.  No,  it  must  come  back  to  the 
ground  upon  which  it  was  placed  by  Mr.  Lower,  and  Mr.  Jackson. 
It  was  a  revolution,  asecession,  the  establishment  of  a  new  meet- 
ing, and  a  new  society.  They  had  a  right  thus  to  separate  and 
to  form  a  society  for  themselves,  they  did  so,  and  the  conse- 
quences of  that  act,  they  must  submit  to. 


84 

I  now  proceed  to  their  first  yearly  meeting,  held  in  tenth 
month  1827,  in  Green  street  meeting  house.  We  find  from  the 
testimony,  that  there  were  representatives  attended  fi:om  five 
quarterly  meetings  out  of  eleven.  There  were  eleven  quarters 
attached  to  the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia,  and  of  these  only 
five  sent  representatives  to  the  new  meeting.  Six  quarters  were 
unrepresented  in  this  meeting;  they  had  not  even  a  majority 
about  which  they  have  said  so  much.  There  were  also  one  or 
two  monthly  meetings  represented  there.  Those  then  who  com- 
posed that  meeting  were  representatives  from  five  quarterly 
meetings,  two  monthly  meetings,  and  other  individuals  favouring 
their  views.  I  would  now  ask  the  court,  whether  this  meeting, 
so  constituted,  can  have  any  shadow  of  claim  to  being  a  continua- 
tion of  the  old  yearly  meeting?  Is  there  any  thing  that  looks 
like  it,  or  that  can  bear  them  out  in  their  pretensions  1  Every 
man  who  looks  at  the  facts  must  see  there  is  nothing. 

Mr.  Lower  makes  a  most  curious  mistake,  when  he  undertakes 
to  fix  the  time  of  holding  their  first  meeting.  1  Vol.  Evidence,  p. 
468.  He  was  asked  "  when  the  yearly  meeting  to  which  he 
belonged  was  first  held  or  opened  ?"  His  reply  is  that  "  it  was 
first  opened  in  10th  month  1827."  His  examination  was  not  then 
closed,  but  postponed  to  another  day  ;  meanwhile  its  seems  he 
discovered  that  he  had  made  a  great  mistake,  or  somebody  had 
discovered  it  for  him,  and  when  he  came  to  be  examined  again, 
he  dates  it  back  to  the  meeting  in  Burlington  in  1681.  The  pas- 
sage is  a  very  curious  one,  and  I  shall  beg  leave  to  read  it  to  the 
court.  The  witness  says,  Vol  1.  Evidence,  p.  472.  "  I  would  beg 
leave  to  recur  to  my  testimony  at  its  close  on  the  evening  before 
last,  and  state  that  I  was  fatigued,  with  a  hard  day's  service, 
under  the  peculiar  circumstances  that  I  was  then  placed.  I  was 
fagged  down  and  was  not  aware  of  my  condition,  till  I  came  to 
reflect  upon  what  had  passed,  and  recurring  to  my  feelings  ;  and 
I  think  it  is  but  justice  to  state,  that  I  misapprehended  the  ques- 
tion that  was  put  to  me  relative  to  the  time  of  our  holding  our 
first  yearly  meeting,  after  the  reorganization  of  society,  that  is, 
that  it  was  in  contrast  with  that  yearly  meeting  that  was  held  in 
Arch  street,  and  which  for  the  reasons  that  I  have  stated  in 
divers  instances,  ceases  to  be  a  yearly  meetirig  of  the  society  of 
Friends.     And  I  would  therefore  desire,  that  my  answer  to  that 


85 

question,  should  be  according  to  the  account  contained  in  the 
book  of  discipline,  that  our  first  yearly  meeting  was  held  at 
Burlington  in  1681." 

There  can  be  no  doubt  but  the  counsel  or  some  other  kind 
friend,  had  informed  this  witness  during  the  interval  of  his  exam- 
ination, that  it  was  necessary  to  consider  their  meeting  as  a  con- 
tinuance of  the  original  meeting,  that  they  must  not  go  upon  the 
ground  of  its  being  a  new  meeting,  and  therefore  the  witness  un- 
dertakes to  correct  the  mistake  and  to  apologise  for  falling  into  it. 
Under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  this  meeting  being 
set  up  within  the  precincts  of  another,  the  original  meeting  being 
regularly  adjourned  and  continued,  and  now  existing,  the  court 
must  see  that  this  is  not  the  same  yearly  meeting,  but  a  new 
meeting  and  a  secession  from  the  original  meeting  and  from  the 
society  of  Friends.    What  is  the  opinion  of  Friends  upon  this  sub- 
ject ?     Of  all  other  meetings  of  Friends,  whose  minds  have  not 
been  poisoned  with  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks  ?     Is  there  any 
yearly  meeting  of  Friends  in  this  country,  or  in  Europe,  which 
acknowledges  this  new  meeting  as  a  meeting  of  the  society  ?  The 
testimony  tells  us  there  is  not  one.     The  vearlv  meeting  in  Lon- 
don,  which  is  the  parent  meeting,  considers  the  meeting  in  Arch 
street  as  the  yearly  meeting  of  Friends,  and  holds  regular  corres- 
pondence with  it  as  such.     They  consider  the  Green  street  meet- 
ing as  spurious,  as  not  being  a  part  of  the  society  of  Friends,  and 
refuse  having  any  intercourse  with  them.     Here  then  we  have 
the  opinion  of  a  meeting  entirely  uncontaminated  with  the  prin- 
ciples which  produced  the  new  meeting,  and  uninfluenced  by  the 
excitement  which  grew  out  of  the  controversy.     They  recognise 
the  meeting  in  Arch  street,  and  decline  any  communication  with 
the  other.     The  yearly  meeting  of  New  England  also  acknow- 
ledges the  old  yearly  meeting,  and  disclaims  all  connexion  with 
the  new  one.     The  yearly  meeting  of  Virginia  does  the  same. 
It  acknowledges  the  yearly  meeting  in  Arch  street,  as  the  regu- 
lar yearly  meeting,  and  refuses  to  have  any  thing  to  do  with  the 
other.     Such  is  also  the  case  with  the  yearly  meeting  of  North 
Carolina.     They  have  all  denounced  the  principles  of  Hicks  as 
being  repugnant  to  Quakerism,  and  declared  that  the  meetings 
set  up  by  his  adherents  are  not  meetings  of  the  society  of  Friends. 
In  all  the  yearly  meetings  I  have  named  there  are  no  •'  Hicksites" ; 


•a^. 


86 

they  have  been  spared  the  discord  and  division  which  the  preach- 
ing of  Hicks  produced,  and  we  find  wherever  there  is  no  Hicks- 
ism,  there  Friends  disown  the  new  meeting  and  recognise  the 
meeting  in  Arch  street,  as  the  yearly  meeting  of  the  society  of 
Friends.  Is  not  this  the  strongest  evidence  that  this  new  meet- 
ing of  the  "  Hicksite"  party  is  set  up  in  violation  of  the  principles 
of  Friends  ?  It  is  true  they  have  been  recognised  by  a  division 
of  certain  other  yearly  meetings,  but  it  is  only  where  Hicksitism 
has  attained  footing,  and  by  those  who  have  adopted  it  as  their 
own  religion.  A  part  of  the  yearly  meeting  in  New  York,  who 
are  of  this  character,  recognise  the  new  meeting  and  correspond 
with  it.  In  Oiiio  a  similar  schism  has  also  taken  place  and  a 
part  recognis^e  the  meeting  in  Green  street:  the  other  portions 
of  these  meetings  however  do  not  acknowledge  it.  From  an  ex- 
amination of  other  yearly  meetings  where  a  division  has  occurred, 
it  appears  there  are  none  who  recognise  this  new  meeting  except 
those  Vk'ho  have  been  guilty  of  the  same  schism,  of  seceding  in  the 
same  way.  Mr.  Lower  attempts  to  account  for  this,  and  I  call 
the  attention  of  the  court  to  his  evidence  on  the  subject  as  it 
affords  a  fine  specimen  of  his  christian  charity.  He  says,  vol.  I. 
Evidence,  pp.  468,  9,  "  The  yearly  meeting  of  London  does  not 
correspond  with  the  yearly  meeting  of  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey, 
&c.  We  understand,  I  think,  by  information;  perhaps  from  the 
clerk  of  the  London  yearly  meeting,  communicated  to  the  clerk 
of  our  yearly  meeting,  that  they  decline  corresponding  with  our 
vearly  meeting  ;  and  I  understand  that  the  reason  alleged  is,  that 
the  meeting  for  sufferings  of  the  orthodox  yearly  meeting  of  Phi- 
ladelphia, have  so  defamed  us  in  their  communication  to  Friends 
of  the  London  yearly  meeting,  as  to  induce  them  to  submit  our 
communication  or  epistle  to  the  examination  of  perhaps  two  or 
three  individuals,  to  report  whether  such  communications  are  fit 
to  be  read  in  the  meeting  or  not.  The  meeting,  I  think,  has 
hence  arrived  at  the  conclusion  not  to  hear  those  communications 
read,  when  those  two  or  three  individuals  made  their  report,  and 
the  great  body  of  the  society  remain  ignorant  of  us,  excepting 
what  is  supposed  to  be  detailed  out  to  them  by  those  who  are  in 
strict  unity  with  the  orthodox  yearly  meeting  here.  As  to  the 
Friends  in  New  England,  they  have  been,  I  think  in  a  lame  way 
some  time  back,  and  I  have  reason  to  apprehend  they  are  not 


87 

much  better  now,  and  we  have  no  correspondence  with  them. 
The  Virginia  yearly  meeting  which  1  think  the  orthodox  make 
a  spread  about,  caHing  it  the  ancient  yearly  meeting  of  Virginia, 
from  what  information  I  have  of  that  ancient  concern,  I  am  sat- 
isfied that  it  is  a  very  little  concern.  I  should  suppose  from  what 
I  have  understood,  that  the  whole  body  of  its  members  together, 
do  not  amount  to  a  larger  number  than  the  members  of  Green 
street  monthly  meeting.  Carolina  yearly  meeting  does  not  cor- 
respond with  us.  These  men  of  leisure,  these  rich  men,  I  have 
spoken  of  in  Philadelphia,  were  the  medium  of  the  communication 
of  the  bounty  of  the  great  body  of  Friends  to  help  them  and  their 
poor  oppressed  blacks,  out  of  their  trouble,  as  far  as  that  little 
bounty  would  go  in  such  a  matter,  which,  together  with  a  sort 
of  missionary  influence,  has  had,  I  think,  a  powerful  effect  in 
alienating  their  minds,  by  infusing  prejudices  against  us  in  them." 

We  see  then,  if  the  court  please,  that  all  the  yearly  meetings 
of  the  society  of  Friends  refuse  to  acknowledge  this  new  yearly 
meeting.  It  now  remains  for  the  court  to  say  whether  they  will 
recognise  it.  Will  you  pronounce  it  to  be  a  meeting  of  the  soci- 
ety of  Friends,  when  that  society  itself  declares  that  it  is  not  so  ? 
Will  you  recognise  a  meeting  which  is  acknowledged  by  no  body 
of  Friends  in  the  world,  and  by  those  persons  only  who  are  con- 
nected in  the  same  schism.  The  court  I  think  must  consider  it 
as  a  schism,  as  a  new  meeting,  as  a  new  head  to  a  new  society, 
and  all  those  who  have  separated  from  the  original  quarterly, 
monthly  and  preparative  meetings,  and  united  themselves  to  this 
new  head,  must  be  considered  in  the  same  light,  as  having  seced- 
ed from  the  great  head  to  which  they  were  originally  attached. 

Wednesday  morning,  January  11th,  10  A.M. — My  object  yes- 
terday, was  to  prove  that  the  separation  of  the  "  Hicksite"  party 
which  took  place  in  April,  1827,  did  not  extinguish  or  dissolve 
the  yearly  meeting  of  Friends  ;  that  there  was  nothing  took  place 
during  that  meeting  which  could  have  merged  or  put  an  end  to 
its  existence.  I  shall  now  proceed  to  show  that  nothing  trans- 
pired before  that  time  which  could  have  destroyed  or  put  an  end 
to  it.  If  nothing  occurred  at  or  before  that  meeting  to  extin- 
guish it,  nothing  that  has  happened  since  could  produce  that  re- 
sult. The  subsequent  circumstances  which  the  gentlemen  have 
so  much  relied  upon,  are  the  effects  of  these  difficulties  in  the 


88 

society,  not  the  causes.      The  gentlemen  mistake   effects   for 
causes.     We  contend  that  it  was  a  real   difference  of  opinion 
about  essential  religious  doctrines,  which  gave  rise  to  all  these 
difficulties,  and  produced  the  separation ;  and  that  all  the  sub- 
jects of  complaint  on  which  they  lay  so  much  stress,  grew  out 
of  that  difference.     In  order  to  satisfy  the  court  that  there  were 
prior  difficulties  or  grievances,  and  that  their  separation  grew 
out  of  these,  they  go  back  to  the  year  1819.     Before,  however, 
1  take  up  their  different  grounds  of  complaint,  permit  me  to  make 
one  observation.     Your  honours  will  perceive  from  the  testimony 
of  the  witnesses  on  both  sides,  that  these  subjects  of  complaint 
grew  out  of  opposition  to  Elias  Hicks,  and   to  those  doctrines 
which  he    publicly  promulgated  in   his  testimonies  before  the 
world.     The  cause  of  complaint  which  the  gentleman  states  to 
have  occurred  in  1819,  is  an  alleged  disrespect  shewn  to  Elias 
Hicks.     It  is  in  itself  a  very  trifling  thing ;  one  which  such  a 
man  as  Elias  Hicks  is  represented  to  be,  or  indeed  any  one  else, 
ought  to  have  thought  very  little  about.      In  the  year  1819, 
when  on  a  visit  to  Philadelphia,  he  left  the  men's  meeting  at 
Pine  street,  and  went  into  the  women's  meeting,  and  while  he 
was   there,  an  adjournment  of  the  men's  meeting  took  place. 
This,  it  is  said,  was  disrespectful  to  Elias  Hicks,  and  that  it  is 
contrary  to  usage  to  adjourn  the  men's  meeting  while  the  wo- 
men's meeting  was  sitting,  or  while  a  member  of  the  men's  meet- 
ing was  there.     But  even  if  we  admit  this  to  be  the  case,  it 
amounts  to  nothing  more  than  a  disrespect  to  the  man ;  and  is 
this  a  ground  of  serious  complaint ;  a  ground  on  which  to  rest 
the  justification  of  their  secession  from  the  society?     Is  it  a  cir- 
cumstance which  this  court  can  seriously  regard  ?     But  it  ap- 
pears that  it  was  not  contrary  to  the  usage  of  the  society  for  the 
men's  meeting  thus  to  adjourn.     All  the  witnesses  who  speak  on 
this  subject,  those  of  the  "  Hicksite"  party,  admit  that  the  yearly 
meeting  had  repeatedly  done  the  sanje  thing   (see  A.  Lower's 
testimony,  vol.  I.  p.  410,) ;  the  monthly  meeting  therefore  had 
the  example  of  the  highest  body  in  the  society  for  its  adjourn- 
ment. 

We  do  not  however  mean  to  deny  that  there  was,  even  as 
early  as  this  period,  an  objection  to  the  doctrines  and  preaching 
of  Elias  Hicks.     The  sentiments  which   he  had   at  that  time 


89 

avowed,  had  alienated  many  of  the  aged  and  solid  members  of 
the  society  ;  they  viewed  him  as  a  new  light ;  the  introducer  of 
new  doctrines  calculated  to  disturb  the  peace  and  harmony  of 
the  society,  and  to  mislead  the  members  :  as  one  aiming  to  be- 
come the  founder  of  a  new  sect ;  they  therefore  felt  much  unea- 
siness and  concern  respecting  him. 

Another  subject  of  complaint  is,  that  at  a  subsequent  period 
when  EHas  Hicks  was  coming  to  Philadelphia  on  a  visit,  some  of 
the  elders  in  that  city  thought  it  their  duty  to  interfere  respect- 
ing the  doctrines  which  he  promulgated.  He  was  coming  there 
under  the  pretence  of  making  a  religious  visit  to  the  meetings 
and  families  of  Friends.  If  the  elders  really  believed  that  he 
was  unsound  in  his  doctrines,  that  he  was  spreading  errors 
through  the  society,  calculated  to  mislead  its  honest  but  unin- 
formed members,  that  his  conduct  was  calculated  to  produce  a 
schism  and  division  among  them,  was  it  not  proper,  was  it  not 
their  duty  as  officers  and  guardians  of  the  church,  entrusted 
with  the  special  oversight  and  care  of  the  ministers,  to  oppose 
him  in  every  proper  method  1  If  there  was  any  body  competent 
to  judge  of  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks;  to  form  a  correct  opin- 
ion of  the  consequences  likely  to  result  from  the  course  he  was 
pursuing,  the  elders  were  that  body.  Men  selected  for  one  of 
the  highest  and  most  responsible  stations  in  the  church,  chosen 
for  their  piety,  their  experience,  and  religious  worth ;  clothed 
with  a  public  character,  and  deputed  to  watch  over  the  general 
interests  and  welfare  of  the  society,  and  over  the  preaching  and 
doctrines  of  the  ministers.  In  the  stand  which  these  men  took 
against  the  principles  of  Elias  Hicks,  was  there  any  departure 
from  the  discipline  of  the  society  ?  The  "  Hicksite"  party  allege 
that  there  was  ;  they  say  that  those  elders  should  have  pursued 
a  ditferent  course;  that  they  should  have  complained  against 
Elias  Hicks  to  his  meeting  at  home,  the  monthly  meeting  at 
Jericho,  which  as  they  say,  was  the  proper  body  to  deal  with 
him. 

But  is  there  any  thing  in  the  discipline  to  prove  that  when  he 
was  in  Philadelphia  upon  a  visit,  the  dders  there  had  no  right 
to  treat  with  him  ?  There  is  nothing.  On  the  contrary,  he 
was  under  their  care,  and  subject  to  their  advice  and  admoni- 
tion while  there,  as  much  so  as  any  other  member.     The  elders 

M 


90 

of  Philadelphia  therefore,  undertook  to  interfere,  as  they  had  a 
right  to  do,  and  as  they  were  bound  to  do,  on  account  of  the  doc- 
trines which  he  was  known  to  promulgate  in  his  public  testimo- 
nies. It  is  not  pretended,  that  if,  after  he  left  Long  Island,  he 
had  preached  sentiments  adverse  to  the  known  testimonies  of 
the  society,  respecting  war,  oaths,  &c.  the  elders  of  that  city 
would  have  had  no  right  to  deal  with  him ;  and  yet  they  say, 
that  when  he  undertook  to  advance  doctrines  contrary  to  the 
principles  of  Friends,  and  calculated  to  produce  a  schism,  they 
had  no  right  to  interfere.  They  have  nothing,  however,  to  sus- 
tain them  in  this  assertion,  and  the  one  is  as  proper  and  neces- 
sary as  the  other. 

But,  if  the  court  please,  I  am  willing  to  put  it  on  another  foot- 
ing. It  was  impossible  to  stop  him  in  the  promulgation  of  these 
sentiments  in  any  other  way.  He  has  been  represented  here  as 
being  strong  in  the  affections  and  hearts  of  those  connected  with 
him.  It  is  true,  he  was  so,  and  this  made  him  the  more  danger- 
ous. The  confidence  that  was  reposed  in  him,  his  standing,  his 
popularity,  and  his  influence,  made  him  a  most  dangerous  man 
to  inculcate  unsound  doctrines.  This  very  circumstance  made 
it  the  more  necessary  for  the  elders  to  take  the  course  they  did. 
The  meeting  at  Jericho  had  adopted  his  doctrines ;  they  approv- 
ed of  him,  and  of  all  that  he  did.  It  was  in  vain  then  to  apply 
to  it  for  a  remedy  ;  it  held  that  he  was  sound  in  the  faith.  They 
might  as  well  have  complained  to  Elias  Hicks  himself;  and  they 
had  no  alternative  left  but  to  take  the  course  they  did. 

We  find  then,  that  a  meeting  of  some  of  the  elders  and  a  few 
other  friends,  took  place  in  Philadelphia  at  the  close  of  a  meeting 
for  sufferings.  Ten  or  twelve  persons  in  all  attended,  and  among 
the  rest  Lower,  who  is  a  "  Hicksite,"'  and  one  of  the  principal 
men  on  that  side.  He  was  requested  to  remain  and  consult 
what  was  best  to  be  done,  and  from  his  own  statement  he  ap- 
pears to  have  taken  an  active  part  in  the  proceedings.  The  sub- 
ject for  consideration  was  stated  to  be  the  unsound  doctrines  of 
Elias  Hicks,  and  the  mischief  he  was  doing  among  them.  Was 
not  this  a  proper  subject  of  enquiry  ?  Were  they  not  autho- 
rized, was  it  not  their  undoubted  right,  thus  to  meet  and  take 
measures  to  prevent  the  evils  likely  to  result  from  his  course  ? 
They  met,  not  as  enemies,  but  as  friends  of  Elias  Hicks,  to  de- 


91 

termlne  what  was  best  to  be  done  under  the  circumstances  of 
the  case. 

It  was  well  known  that  they  could  not  stop  him  by  applying 
to  the  meeting  at  Jericho.  In  fact,  he  had  then  left  home,  and 
was  on  his  way  to  Philadelphia  ;  an  application  to  that  meeting 
would  therefore  have  been  entirely  unavailing.  They  were 
obliged  then  to  take  other  measures  to  prevent  the  evils  which 
must  arise  from  the  dissemination  of  his  antichristian  doctrines 
among  them.  If  there  is  any  thing  in  the  book  of  discipline 
which  prevents  the  elders  from  interfering  with  a  member  of 
another  meeting,  who  is  visiting  among  them,  if  there  is  any  thing 
which  forbids  the  course  that  these  gentlemen  took,  I  should 
be  glad  to  see  it.  It  has  not  yet  been  produced.  If  when  an 
individual  is  travelling  from  home,  spreading  false  doctrines  and 
poisoning  the  members  of  the  society  with  pernicious  principles, 
no  one  is  to  interfere  wath  him,  but  the  meeting  which  sent  him 
out  for  the  very  purpose  of  preaching  these  doctrines,  it  is  in- 
deed a  serious  and  dangerous  state  of  things.  The  society  would 
be  the  prey  of  every  ambitious  innovator,  who  had  address 
enough  to  insinuate  himself  into  the  good  graces  of  his  own  meet- 
ing. It  appears  from  the  evidence  that  at  this  meeting  some  of 
the  elders  were  deputed  to  wait  on  Mr.  Hicks,  before  he  came 
to  the  city,  to  state  to  him  the  reports  which  were  abroad  re- 
specting the  nature  of  his  doctrines,  and  to  request  of  him  an 
explanation.  This  was  all  that  was  done ;  the  gentlemen  apoint- 
ed,  however,  did  not  obtain  an  interview  with  him,  and  here  this 
matter  ended.  Soon  after  this  Elias  Hicks  came  to  Philadelphia, 
and  the  elders  thought  it  their  duty  again  to  endeavour  to  pro- 
cure an  interview  with  him.  Two  of  their  number  accordingly 
called  on  him,  stated  the  charges  of  unsound  doctrine  which 
were  alleged  against  him,  and  desired  him  to  give  the  elders  a 
select  opportunity  with  him  agreeably  to  the  usages  of  the  socie- 
ty. It  seems  that  he  eluded  this  interview,  he  would  give  them 
no  opportunity  of  conversing  with  him,  except  in  a  pubhc  man- 
ner. He  said  they  had  no  right  to  interfere  in  the  business,  de- 
nied their  jurisdiction,  and  all  obligation  to  conform  to  any  mea- 
sures which  they  thought  it  necessary  to  adopt.  They  could  ob- 
tain no  private  conversation  wdth  him.  They  were  willing  to 
have  the  interview  in  the  presence  of  such  persons  as  might  be 


92 

proper,  but  they  could  not  consent  to  a  public  discussion  in  the 
Green  street  meeting  house.  This  was  not  calculated  to  benefit 
the  cause  of  religion,  nor  to  advance  the  cause  of  religious  truth. 
They  wished  to  confer  with  him,  as  brethren,  as  friends;  but 
they  did  not  wish  to  do  it  in  public,  this  was  contrary  to  the 
usages  of  the  society ;  nor  did  they  wish  to  do  it  entirely  in  pri- 
vate, but  with  as  much  privacy  as  the  circumstances  of  the  case 
and  the  custom  of  the  society  required. 

As  he  refused  to  grant  them  such  an  interview,  the  elders  then 
thought  it  their  duty  to  address  a  letter  to  him,  stating  their  un- 
easiness and  concern  respecting  his  doctrines  and  ministry.  He 
replied  to  this,  and  they  wrote  a  second  letter  in  answer  to  his, 
and  here  their  proceedings  ended. 

Now  suppose  these  gentlemen  were  mistaken,  that  the  facts 
did  not  justify  the  course  they  took,  was  there  any  thing  in  all 
this  to  justify  the  separation  ;  any  thing  to  form  a  ground  for  a 
division,  a  secession  from  the  society?  There  certainly  was  no- 
thing. But  will  the  court  enquire  into  this  matter;  is  it  a  subject 
of  which  they  can  take  cognizance?  Is  the  court  going  to  explain 
the  discipline  of  the  society,  for  its  members,  or  to  put  its  own 
construction  as  to  what  it  does,  or  does  not  require,  under  such 
circumstances?  Will  the  court  attempt  to  do  this,  or  will  it  not 
rather  look  at  the  proceedings  of  the  elders  simply  as  they  affect 
this  controversy.  If  the  Hicksite  party  can  shew  that  the  care 
and  concern  of  those  elders  tended  to  dissolve  the  bonds  of  the 
society,  that  it  rent  in  sunder  the  ties  which  united  the  members, 
this  is  one  ground;  if  they  say  merely,  that  it  was  a  ground  of 
dissatisfaction,  and  discontent  to  their  party,  we  admit  this,  it  was 
so,  but  then  we  trace  it  all  back  to  Elias  Hicks  and  his  doctrines, 
as  the  original  cause;  but  for  him  and  his  principles,  that  dis- 
satisfaction would  never  have  existed,  nor  this  schism  occurred. 
The  proceedings  of  the  elders  cannot  justify  nor  explain  this 
severance  of  the  society,  they  are  not  sufficient  to  account  for  it. 
It  must  come  back  to  this  point,  that  the  whole  cause  of  com- 
plaint, the  whole  source  of  difficulty,  was  Elias  Hicks,  and  the 
doctrines  he  preached.  These  gentlemen,  the  elders,  have  been 
much  traduced,  as  being  a  faction,  rich  men,  an  aristocracy,  and 
as  endeavouring  to  obtain  power.  These  are  strange  charges 
indeed  against  men  of  their  habits,  aqd  of  their  religious  princi- 


93 

pies.  Their  whole  course  of  life  goes  to  exclude  them  from 
power,  to  restrain  them  from  grasping  after  the  power  of  this 
world.  Is  there  any  ground,  in  any  thing  they  did,  on  which  he 
found  such  charges,  or  to  impute  to  them  improper  motives  1  j\o, 
the  course  they  took  was  in  obedience  to  their  rehgious  duty,  as 
guardians  of  the  society,  as  overseers  of  the  church,  on  whom  a 
serious  and  solemn  responsibility  was  devolved  by  the  discipline. 
They  are  charged  with  being  conspiratms,  hut  for  what  did  they 
conspire  ?  To  promote  the  cause  of  truth  and  of  the  Christian 
religion.  1  wish  there  were  more  conspirators  of  the  same  descrip- 
tion. Their  motive  was  not  only  justitiable,  but  laudable,  every 
christian  man  will  sanction  and  approve  it,  will  say  they  were 
fully  justified  in  taking  the  course  they  did.  If  any  facts  had 
been  laid  before  this  court,  to  show  that  the  conduct  of  the  elders 
proceeded  from  mere  prejudice  against  Mr.  Hicks,  or  from  sinister 
or  malicious  motives,  and  not  from  a  sense  of  religious  obligation, 
there  might  be  some  colour  of  pretence  for  this  complaint.  But 
when  men  of  their  character  and  religious  standing,  acting  as 
they  did  from  conscientious  motives,  are  thus  groundlessly  tra- 
duced by  a  party  in  the  society,  it  is  a  most  unjustifiable  and 
wanton  course. 

We  then  come  to  the  Extracts  which  were  prepared  by  the 
meeting  for  sulFerings,  in  the  year  1822,  about  which  we  have 
heard  so  much,  and  which  have  been  declaimed  against  as  an 
attempt  to  impose  a  creed  upon  the  society  contrary  to  its  prin- 
ciples. This  has  been  held  here  to  be  of  so  much  importance, 
that  the  gentlemen  who  first  addressed  the  court  on  the  opposite 
side,  made  it  the  ground  of  separation,  the  primary  ground,  and 
that  all  subsequent  difficulties  were  to  be  traced  to  this  act.  It 
was  necessary  to  put  his  finger  upon  some  one  circumstance,  as 
the  ground  of  separation,  and  he  has  chosen  this  as  the  strongest. 
Aow  I  think  it  will  not  require  a  William  Penn  to  shake  this  san- 
dy foundation  :  the  statement  of  a  single  fact  will  sweep  it  away. 
These  extracts  were  prepared  in  1822,  in  1823  the  subject  came 
before  the  yearly  meeting,  and  the  publication  of  them  was  sus- 
pended, they  were  laid  by,  and  we  hear  no  more  of  them  after- 
wards. If  this  then  was  the  ground  of  division,  why  did  not  the 
separation  take  place  in  1823,  when  they  were  before  the  year- 
ly meeting?  They   complain  bitterly  of  this  meeting  for  suffer- 


94 

ings,  as  being  an  aristocracy,  requiring  the  strong  arm  of  the  law 
to  put  it  down.  Why  did  they  not  then  take  measures  to  put  it 
down,  at  that  meeting  i  At  that  time  the  excitement  had  not 
gone  to  the  length  w-hich  it  afterwards  did,  they  could  harmonize 
and  act  in  unison,  and  if  this  meeting  for  sufferings  had  been  the 
dangerous  body  which  they  would  now  make  us  believe,  then 
was  the  time  to  put  it  down  and  correct  the  evil.  But  no  such 
attempt  is  made  or  thought  of.  When  the  extracts  came  before 
the  yearly  meeting,  they  were  opposed;  those  in  favour  of  pub- 
lishing them  yielded  their  opinion  and  they  were  laid  by.  Can 
any  man  believe  that  this  circumstance,  (even  giving  it  all  the 
characteristics  which  the  imagination  of  the  party  has  clothed  it 
with,)  occurring  in  the  year  1823,  was  the  cause  of  the  separa- 
ration  which  took  place  in  the  yearly  meeting  of  1827.  If  it 
was  the  cause,  why  was  it  not  tlie  immediate  cause.  The  act 
complained  of  was  done  in  1823,  why  did  they  not  then  sepa- 
rate ?  But  they  did  not  separate  then,  they  met  again  the  year 
after,  and  in  the  year  after  that,  and  transacted  their  business  in 
the  ordinary  manner,  until  the  year  1827,  and  yet  that  act  is 
now  set  up  as  a  circumstance  which  dissolved  the  bonds  of  union 
that  existed  in  the  yearly  meeting.  If  this  was  the  fact,  then 
from  the  year  1823  to  1827  the  society  was  without  a  yearly 
meeting  in  Philadelphia.  How  was  it  then  that  Friends  met  dur- 
ing each  of  the  intervening  years,  and  transacted  their  business. 
They  either  were  a  yearly  meeting,  or  they  were  no  yearly 
meeting.  If  the  act  complained  of,  in  1823,  burst  the  bonds  of 
the  society,  and  dissolved  the  ties  which  held  it  together,  it  ter- 
minated the  existence  of  the  yearly  meeting  ;  but  if  the  society 
could  and  did  meet  as  a  yearly  meeting  for  years  after,  and  reg- 
ularly transact  its  business,  then  that  act  did  not  dissolve  the 
bonds  of  the  society,  nor  put  an  end  to  the  existence  of  the 
yearly  meeting  in  1827. 

My  object,  if  the  court  please,  is  to  show  that  it  was  a  separa- 
tion which  took  place  in  1827,  not  a  dissolution  of  the  yearly 
meeting.  I  might  have  answered  all  the  grounds  relied  on  by 
the  other  side,  by  saying,  Gentlemen,  they  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  subject,  they  cannot  affect  the  existence  of  the  yearly 
meeting,  and  unless  they  put  an  end  to  the  yearly  meeting  of  4th 
month  1827,  the  "  Hicksite"  meeting  must  be  a  new  one.     Their 


95 

witnesses  speak  of  it,  as  a  separation,  as  the  formation  of  a  new 
yearly  meeting,  of  a  new  society ;  they  speak  of  the  measures 
as  measures  designed  to  produce  a  separation.  Their  publica- 
tions say  that  the  time  for  withdrawing  has  fully  come  ;  not  that 
the  yearly  meeting  is  dissolved.  If  then  it  was  a  separation, 
and  it  cannot  be  any  thing  else,  who  are  the  separatists'?  It  is 
impossible  to  impute  that  character  to  us;  no  one  pretends  that 
we  have  separated  from  the  society  of  Friends.  They  must 
therefore  be  the  separatists;  they  cannot  avoid  the  imputation, 
neither  can  they  take  the  character  of  those  they  have  separated 
from ;  they  cannot  be  Friends,  they  have  no  claim  to  the  title. 

Another  ground  of  complaint  is,  that  the  meeting  for  sufferings, 
the  great  object  of  their  hostility,  wished  to  render  itself  a  perma- 
nent body;  that  they  attempted  to  interfere  with  the  quarters  in 
the  appointment  of  their  representatives  in  that  meeting.  That 
when  one  of  the  quarters  attempted  to  change  its  representa- 
tives, the  meeting  for  sufferings  interfered  and  insisted  that  the 
existing  representatives  must  remain  in  office  until  removed  by 
death,  or  in  some  other  mode  prescribed  by  the  discipline.  Such 
is  their  complaint.  Now  I  would  ask  the  court,  whether  it  will 
go  into  the  enquiry,  whether  the  meeting  for  sufferings  be  a 
permanent  or  temporary  body  ?  Will  it  undertake  to  give  its 
own  construction  to  the  discipline  of  the  society,  and  tell  the 
members  whether  their  meeting  for  sufferings  is  permanent  or 
not  ?  What  bearing  can  this  have  on  the  cause  now  pending 
before  the  court  ?  Supposing  the  meetingJbr  sufferings  to  have 
been  mistaken  in  their  views  of  this  sub*ct,  does  that  change 
any  one  fact  bearing  on  the  case,  now  before  the  court  ?  I  think 
not.  The  meeting  for  sufferings  appointed  a  committee  to  go 
down  to  the  quarter,  and  endeavour  to  terminate  the  business 
amicably.  The  committee  accordingly  went  down,  and  stated 
the  views  of  the  meeting  for  sufferings  in  relation  to  the  matter ; 
and  what  was  the  consequence  1  The  quarterly  meeting  adhered 
to  its  course,  and  there  the  business  ended.  When  the  subject 
came  before  the  yearly  meeting,  which  was  the  proper  body  to 
settle  the  discipline  in  the  case,  it  was  dismissed  at  the  sugges- 
tion of  the  "  Hicksite"  party  themselves,  and  with  their  "full 
approbation.  Is  there  any  thing  then  in  this  circumstance 
which  tends  to    show    that  the  yearly  meeting  of  1827   was 


96 

dissolved,  that  it  had  no  existence,  or  that  a  separation  did  not 
take  place  between  Friends  and  the  "  Hicksites  ?"  The  gentle- 
man considers  the  conduct  of  the  meeting  for  sufferings  as  of  the 
most  alarming  character,  that  it  was  an  innovation  and  intended 
to  concentrate  all  power  in  the  hands  of  this  body,  and  to  give 
them  a  control  over  the  whole  society.  I  am  really  at  a  loss  to 
perceive  where  the  gentleman  finds  any  ground  for  these  sur- 
mises. It  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  the  change  made  by 
the  Southern  quarter  in  its  representatives,  was  entirely  a  new 
attempt,  that  there  is  no  precedent  for  it,  since  the  establishment 
of  the  discipline,  that  it  was  contrary  to  the  general  opinion  of 
the  society  as  regards  the  powers  of  the  quarterly  meetings,  the 
meeting  for  sufferings  therefore  hesitated  to  recognize  it ;  they 
were  cautious  of  sanctioning  a  measure  not  recognized  by  the 
discipline  and  usages  of  the  society,  and  therefore  appointed  a 
committee  to  confer  with  the  quarter ;  the  quarter  refused  to 
confer,  and  there  the  matter  terminated.  What  is  there  in  this 
which  furnishes  ground  for  the  gentleman's  apprehensions?  I 
can  see  nothing.  But  suppose  they  are  all  well  founded.  What 
right  have  they  to  bring  it  here  as  a  subject  of  complaint ;  the 
yearly  meeting  was  the  proper  place  to  correct  the  evil,  if  any 
existed,  and  when  it  came  there,  they  voluntarily  dismissed  it. 
Your  honours  will  find  by  examining  the  testimony,  that  all  the 
clamour  which  has  been  raised  on  this  subject,  grew  out  of  the 
fact,  that  it  was  connected  with  the  opposition  to  the  doctrines 
of  Elias  Hicks.  T\^  of  the  elders  of  Philadelphia,  had  been 
chosen  by  the  SoutlM-n  quarter,  to  represent  it  in  the  meeting 
for  sufferings,  and  because  they  ventured  to  interfere  respecting 
the  doctrines  preached  by  Hicks,  the  Southern  quarter  under- 
took to  remove  them  from  their  station.  That  quarterly  meeting 
is  one  of  the  strong  holds  of  Hicksism,  the  party  have  the  major- 
ity there.  When  therefore  these  elders  attempted  to  interfere 
with  £.  H.  the  quarter  says,  these  men  are  no  longer  in  union 
with  us;  we  will  therefore  displace  them.  The  quarterly 
meeting  contended  that  it  had  a  right  so  to  remove  them,  while 
the  meeting  for  sufferings  thought  that  by  the  discipline  it  had 
no  such  right.  Will  the  court  undertake  to  settle  the  question 
between  them  ? 

These  then  are  all  the  acts  complained  of  by  the  "  Hicksite" 


97 

party  previous  to  the  year  1827,  and  I  think  it  is  evident  there  is 
no  circumstance  occurring  before  the  session  of  the  yearly  meet- 
ing which  can  possibly  be  considered  as  putting  an  end  to  its  ex- 
istence. What  then  is  the  character  of  the  new  yearly  meeting  ? 
Here  are  two  yearly  meetings,  one  held  in  the  Arch  street  meet- 
ing house,  the  other  in  Green  street.  The  one  in  Arch  street 
has  existed  for  a  century  and  a  half.  The  other  has  grown  up 
out  of  this  controversy,  and  dates  its  commencement  in  tenth 
month,  1827.  In  this  separation  which  is  to  be  considered  as 
the  original  yearly  meeting  ?  This  is  an  important  enquiry,  one 
on  which  the  whole  cause  may  turn,  and  1  insist  that  there  can- 
not be  a  doubt  but  that  the  meeting  in  Arch  street,  is  the  true 
yearly  meeting,  the  one  which  must  be  recognised  as  such  by 
this  court,  the  one  that  has  been  acknowledged  by  other  yearly 
meetings  of  Friends,  in  fact  by  the  whole  society  except  those 
persons  who  have  united  in  the  schism  and  separation  which  has 
taken  place.  If  nothing  was  done  previous  to  that  yearly  meet- 
ing, which  extinguished  it,  nor  any  thing  done  during  its  session 
which  had  that  effect,  it  must  still  remain  to  be  the  original 
yearly  meeting.  What  then  is  the  effect  of  this  separation  as  it 
respects  the  property  now  in  question  1  This  will  lead  me  to  con- 
sider the  division  which  has  taken  place  in  the  subordinate 
branches  of  the  yearly  meeting,  and  to  trace  it  down  to  the  pre- 
parative meeting  in  Chesterfield.  Our  ground  on  this  point  is, 
that  a  separation  having  taken  place  in  the  supreme  head,  there 
being  two  meetings  held  by  distinct  bodies  of  people,  assuming 
different  powers  and  control,  those  in  the  subordinate  meetings 
who  have  attached  themselves  to  the  new  yearly  meeting  must 
be  considered  as  a  part  of  it,  and  those  who  continue  to  adhere 
to  the  old  yearly  meeting,  must  be  viewed  as  a  part  of  the  soci- 
ety to  which  they  originally  belonged. 

I  shall  first  call  the  attention  of  the  court  to  a  difficulty  which 
occurred  in  the  Burlington  quarter.  After  the  call  issued  by  the 
"  Hicksites"  to  those  who  were  disposed  to  separate  and  aid  in 
the  formation  of  a  new  society,  in  tenth  month,  1827,  this  quar- 
terly meeting  took  place.  Permit  me  to  remark  here,  that  the 
Burlington  quarterly  meeting  was  not  represented  in  the  new 
yearly  meeting  of  tenth  month  1827.  They  had  no  representa- 
tive there,  and  after  its  formation  they  had  the  option  either  to 


join  with  it  or  to  remain  with  the  other  to  which  they  had  always 
belonged.     I  stated  yesterday  that  when  (he  new  yearly  meet- 
ing was  formed,  only  five  out  of  eleven  quarters  were  represen- 
ted in  it,  the  majority  therefore  was  not  represented.     If  they 
have  increased  so  as  to  form  a  majority  now,  this  does  not  change 
the  state  of  facts  then.     There  is  no  evidence  that  they  had  a 
majority  then,  or  that  this  yearly  meeting  was  set  up  by  a  ma- 
jority, but  so  far  as  there  is  any  evidence  it  is  directly  against  them. 
John  Gummere  in  his  evidence  gives  a  full  and  clear  account 
of  what  took  place  in  the  quarterly  meeting  of  Burlington.     In 
answer  to  the  question,  "  Have  any  difficulties  and  disturbances 
occurred  during  the  period  within  which  you  have  been  clerk  of 
Burlington  quarterly  meeting,  either  in  that  meeting  or  in  any  of 
its  subordinate  branches,  which  have  resulted  in  the  secession  of 
a  part  of  its  members  from  the  society  of  Friends  ?"  The  witness 
says,  "  I  believe  there  have  instances  of  disorder  occurred  in  a 
number  of  the  subordinate  meetings,  but  I  can  only  speak  from 
personal  knowledge  in  reference  to  two.  In  Burlington  quarterly 
meeting  which  was  held  at  the  usual  time  in  eleventh  month, 
1827,  a  number  of  individuals  attended  who,  it  was  stated,  had 
either  been  disowned  or  were  under  dealing  in  the  respective 
monthly  meetings  of  which  they  had  been  or  were  members.     It 
being  contrary  to  the  order  of  our  society  for  business  to  proceed 
when   individuals  so  circumstanced  are  known  to  be  present, 
these  were  divers  times  requested  to  withdraw ;  they  however 
refusing  to  do  so,  and  being  supported  in  their  intention  of  stay- 
ing, by  a  number  of  the  members  of  the  quarterly  meeting,  the 
meeting  was  under  the  necessity,  in  order  that  its  business  might 
be  conducted  consistently  with  the  order  of  the  society,  to  make 
an  adjournment.     It  accordingly  adjourned  to  the  following  sixth 
day  (of  the  week)  at  Burlington,  where  it  was  duly  and  properly 
held.     It  was  adjourned  by  regular  minute.     In  a  monthly  meet- 
ing held  at  Burlington,  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1827,  or  be- 
gining  of  1828,  one  or  more  individuals  were  present  circum- 
stanced as   above   mentioned  ;    these  declining     to    withdraw 
although  repeatedly  and  affectionately  asked  to  do  so,  the  meet- 
ing was  under  the  necessity  of  adjourning.     It  adjourned  to  the 
following  day,  when  it  was  held  in  order  and  quietness.     These 
are  the  only  two  instances  of  disorder  that  I  know  of,  from  being 


99 

present  at  the  time."  I.  vol.  Ev.  p.  316.  And  again  in  p.  317, 
of  the  sanne  volume,  in  answer  to  the  question  whether  those 
members  who  thus  advocated  and  supported  the  individuals 
spoken  of  (as  refusing  to  withdraw)  have  or  have  not  since  that 
time  separated  themselves  from  the  society  of  Friends,  and  gone 
off  in  the  secession  ;  the  witness  says,  "  I  believe  they  have  gen- 
erally or  all  done  so."  In  page  321,  same  volume,  the  witness 
says,  "  By  common  repute  it  (a  meeting  at  Chesterfield,  which 
they  call  the  quarterly  meeting  of  Burlington)  acknowledges  as 
its  immediate  superior  the  meeting  held  at  Green  and  Cherry 
streets,  Philadelphia,  assuming  the  style  of  the  yearly  meeting 
of  Friends  of  Philadelphia,  which  meetings  are  held  on  the 
second  second  day  of  fourth  month  annually." 

From  this  evidence,  as  well  as  that  of  several  other  witnesses, 
the  manner  in  which  the  separation  took  place  in  the  quarterly 
meeting  of  Burlington  appears.     At  the  time  it  was  held,   the 
new  yearly  meeting  of  the  "  Hicksites"  had  been  established, 
and  it  was   now    the   moment   of  separation   in  the    different 
branches ;  each  party  making  choice  of  the  head  to  which  they 
would  be  attached.     When  the  quarterly  meeting  assembled,  it 
was  found  that  a  number  of  persons  were  there  who  had  been 
disowned,  or  were  under  dealing  by  the  society,  and  who  conse- 
quently had  no  right  to  be  present.     They  were  affectionately 
and  repeatedly  requested  to  withdraw.     This  they  refused  to  do, 
although  it  is  an  express  rule  of  the  society,  never  to  transact 
business  in  the  presence  of  persons  thus  circumstanced.     The 
question  then  arose,  what  was  to  be  done.     These  individuals 
were  encouraged  by  the  "  Hicksite"  party  to  remain.     This  at 
once  produced  a  division ;  the  parties  could  not  act  together; 
and  the  "  Orthodox"  meeting  concluded  to  adjourn  to  another 
place ;  they  did  so,  and  with  their  clerk  left  the  house.     i\ow  I 
perfectly  agree  with  the  opposite  counsel  that  the  existence  of 
a  meeting  cannot  depend  on  the  place  where  they  assemble,  or 
whether  the  clerk  goes  with  them  or  stays  behind.     I  admit  that 
this  is  immaterial.     It  depends  upon  the  ?notive  or  object  of  the 
withdrawal.    If  these  gentlemen  at  the  Burlington  quarter  could 
not  transact  their  business  agreeably  to  the  order  of  the  society, 
where  they  were,  they  certainly  had  a  right  to  adjourn  to  ano- 
ther place.     The  court  will  perceive  how  differently  they  acted 


100 

from  the  "  Hicksite"  party  in  the  yearly  meeting.     They  make 
no  disturbance,  but  quietly  withdraw  for   the  purpose  of  trans- 
acting their  business  in  a  regular  manner ;  not   to  form  a  new 
society  or  a  new  meeting,  hut  to  hold  the  quarterly  meeting  of 
Burlington  where  they  can  transact  business  according  to  the 
discipline  and  principles  of  the  society.     Again,  the  court  will 
perceive  that  this  separation  took  place  in  consequence  of  that 
which  had  before  occurred  in  the  head  of  that  meeting,  the  yearly 
meeting.     One  of  the  witnesses  states,  that  a  committee  of  the 
new  yearly  meeting  attended  at  the  quarter,  and  when  the  meet- 
ing was  adjourned,  remained   behind  wuth  their   party.     The 
"  Hicksite"  party  make  no  complaint  of  any  thing  done  by  the 
"  Orthodox"  in  Burlington  quarter  ;  they  complain  of  no  aristo- 
cracy, no  oppression  there  ;  nothing  but  their  withdrawing  from 
the  meeting  house,  and  holding  the  quarterly  meeting  at  another 
time  and  place.     This,  we  insist,  was  in  conformity   with  the 
usages  of  the  society,  as  well  as  its  discipline.     It  is  said,  on  the 
other  side,  that  we  ought  to  have  remained,  that  it  is  contrary 
to  custom  to  leave  the  meeting  until  all  the  business  was  done. 
But,  if  it  please  the  court,  the  meeting  went  along  with  them. 
Suppose  the  "  Orthodox"    party  had  remained ;  the  argument 
then  would  have  been,  that  by  remaining  they  sanctioned  what 
took  place,  and  participated  in  what  was  done.    The  proposition 
was  distinctly  made  in  the  quarterly  meeting,  that  as  they  could 
not  with  propriety  transact  business  among  those  who  were  pre- 
sent, they  had  better  adjourn  to  another  place  where  they  could 
proceed  in  that  harmony  and  order  which  ought  always  to  pre- 
vail in  their  meetings.     They  had  then  the  power  of  deciding 
whether  to  go  or  to  stay,  and  having  decided  to  go,  they  had  a 
perfect  right  to  do  so.     Farther  :  I  hold  that  if  they  had  had  no 
opportunity  ofadjourning ;  if  noise  and  clamour  had  prevented  it ; 
if  the  clerk  had  refused  to  accompany  them ;  still  if  they  had 
adjourned  even  under  these  circumstances,   to   transact  their 
business  in  the  order  of  society,  they  would  have  had  a  right  to 
do  so,  and  would  have  lost  none  of  their  rights  as  the  quarterly 
meeting  of  Burlington.     It  further  appears  from  the  testimony  of 
the  witnesses,  that  the  "  Hicksite"  party  in  this  quarterly  meet- 
ing, have  attached  themselves  to  the  Green  street  yearly  meet- 
ing as  their  head,  and  their  separation  must  therefore  be  taken 


101 

to  be  of  the  same  character  with  that  which  took  place  in  the 
yearly  meeting  of  1827.  The  "  Orthodox"  remain  connected 
with,  and  subordinate  to  the  Arch  street  yearly  meeting,  to 
which  Burlington  quarterly  meeting  originally  belonged.  This 
is  the  situation  of  the  parties  in  the  quarterly  meeting. 

We  come  then  to  the  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting ;  and  I 
will  call  the  attention  of  the  court  to  the  testimony  of  Samuel 
Emlen,  for  a  detail  of  the  circumstances  which  took  place  at 
this  meeting.     I  do  not  mean  to  go  into  all  the  evidence  on  this 
head ;  it  is  abundant,  and  mainly  of  the  same  character ;  but 
from  the  testimony  of  a  single   witness  we  shall  obtain  all  the 
important  facts  necessary  for  a  clear  understanding  of  v\'hat  then 
occurred.     The  witness  says,  vol.  I.  Ev.   p.  324,  *'  Difficulties 
and  disturbances  have  arisen  within  the  monthly  and  prepara- 
tive meetings  of  Chesterfield,  which  have  resulted  in  a  secession 
or  separation  of  a  number  of  persons  there  from  the  society  of 
Friends.     I  was  present  at  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting  in  ninth 
month,  1827.     The  business  on  minute  was  gone  through  with- 
out collision,  so  far  as  I  have  any  remembrance.     But  when,  as 
I  hoped,   the  meeting   was  about  closing  quietly,   a  person,  a 
member  of  that  meeting,  made  a  request   for  a  certificate  of 
removal  for  his  son  to  the  monthly  meeting  of  Green  street.    As 
far  as  I  recollect,  it  was  slated  that  that  monthly  meeting  had 
been  dissolved  or  laid  down,  some  time  before,  by  Philadelphia 
quarterly  meeting,  of  which  it  had  been  a  branch,  and  the  mem- 
bers thereof  attached  to  the  monthly  meeting  held  for  the  Nor- 
thern District,  and  this  fact  1  suppose  must  have  been  known  by 
common  repute  to  most  or  all  present.     I  think  it  was  proposed, 
that  the  certificate   should  be  addressed  to  the  monthly  meeting 
for  the  Northern  District ;  but  some  persons  present  assuming  to 
question  the  fact,  William   Newbold  gave  information  that  he 
was  present  at  the  quarterly  meeting  of  Philadelphia  in  the  pre- 
ceding fifth  month,  when  the  monthly  meeting  of  Green  street 
was  dissolved,  or  laid  down,  by  that  quarterly  meeting.     Some 
person  or  persons  then  present  said,  that  no  official  notice  had 
been  received  of  the  laying  down  of  that  meeting,  and  still  urged 
the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  prepare  the  certificate  to  be 
directed  as  first  requested.     This  continued  to  be  objected  to, 
and  it  was  not  done.     The  meeting  was  adjourned  in  the  usual 


102 

manner,  but  a  number  of  persons  staid  behind  in  the  house,  and 
from  what  afterwards  appeared,  I  suppose  undertook  to  act  as 
a  monthly  meeting.     I  was  not  present  at  the  usual  time  of  hold- 
ing that  meeting  the  succeeding  month,   but  understood,  either 
the  evening  of  that  day  or  the  next  morning,   that  the  business 
of  the  meeting  was  not  transacted    owing  to  interruption,  and 
therefore  the  meeting  was  adjourned  to  next  day.     I  went  to  the 
adjourned  meeting,  which  was  held  quietly  and  without  opposi- 
tion, although  a  few  of  those  who  had  taken  part  in  the  opposi- 
tion to  the  order  of  society  were  present.     I  was  at  that  monthly 
meeting  in  eleventh   month,  1827.     The  regular  clerk  took  his 
seat  without  opposition,  although  those    who  had  opposed  the 
order  and  discipline  in  that  meeting  were  generally  present.     I 
think  it  was  in  the  course  of  reading  the  minutes  of  the  preced- 
ing month,  that  a  person  who  had  taken  part  in  the  disorderly 
proceedings  previously,  on  a  minute  being  read  naming  Samuel 
Bunting  as  agent  of  the  monthly  meeting  at  Chesterfield  to  the 
Asylum  in  his  stead,  (he  having  been  released  at  his  own  request, 
as  it  appeared)  rose  and  said,  that,  meaning  the   releasement, 
was  not  all  he  had  requested  and  desired,  or  to  that  effect,  and 
wished  to  know  whether  a  certain  bond  which  he,  as  agent  for 
Chesterfield   monthly  meeting,  had  given  for  securing  payment 
of  the  expenses  of  a  person  placed  in  the  Asylum  by  that  month- 
ly meeting,  had  been  taken  up  and  cancelled  ;  thus  appearing  to 
acknowledge  the  meeting  then  sitting,  with  David  Clark  as  its 
clerk,  to  be  the  real  monthly  meeting  of  Chesterfield.     When 
this  monthly  meeting   was  closed,  a  number  of  the  persons  dis- 
posed to  separate,  or  who  had  theretofore  acted  disorderly,  re- 
mained together.     1  should  have  observed  before,  that  the  usual 
reports  from  the  preparative  meetings  of  Trenton,  Stony  Brook 
and  East  Branch  were  handed  in  to  the  clerk,  but  those  which 
ought  to  have  come  from  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting,  and 
Bordentown,  were  not  produced.    The  person  who  acted  as  clerk 
at  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting,  on  (heir  being  asked  for, 
said,  he  did  not  consider  this,  meaning  the   present  meeting,  as 
the  proper  monthly  meeting  of  Chesterfield.     I  think  I  was  also 
at  that  meeting  in   the   next  month  following,   being  twelfth 
month  1827,  and  the  regular  clerk  took  his  seat  as  before,  as 
far  as  1  recollect.     I  do  not  now  recollect  any  thing  very  parti- 


103 

cular  as  occurring  at  that  meeting.  I  believe  the  business  went 
on  quietly,  though  I  will  not  be  very  certain.  1  should  have 
stated,  before  alluding  to  the  meeting  of  twelfth  month,  that 
the  members  of  Burlington  quarterly  meeting,  convened  at  the 
usual  time  in  eleventh  month,  for  the  purpose  of  holding  the 
quarterly  meeting  ;  but  a  number  of  persons  being  present,  com- 
ing»into  the  meeting,  who  were  known  to  be  under  appointment 
from  the  assembly  then  recently  held  at  Green  street,  and  also 
some  others  of  the  same  class,  some  of  whom  were  known  to  be 
under  dealings  or  disowned  by  the  respective  monthly  meetings  of 
which  they  were  or  had  been  members,  and  they  refusing  to 
withdraw,  when  requested  so  to  do,  the  meeting,  of  both  men 
and  women,  was  adjourned  to  Burlington,  to  the  following  sixth 
day,  which  I  think  was  the  30th  of  the  month,  when  and  where 
the  quarterly  meeting  was  quietly  held,  and  among  other  busi- 
ness then  transacted,  a  committee  was  appointed  to  visit  the 
subordinate  meetings." 

From  the  testimony  of  this  and  other  witnesses,  it  also  appears 
.  that  the  "  Hicksite"  party  in  the  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting, 
who  are  spoken  of  as  remaining  behind  in  Oth  and  11th  months, 
after  the  meeting  had  adjourned,  organized  themselves  as  a 
monthly  meeting  of  the  new  society,  and  one  of  their  first  acts, 
as  appears  by  their  own  minute  under  date  of  9th  month  1827, 
was  to  appoint  representatives  to  attend  their  "  contemplated 
yearly  meeting,"  to  be  held  in  the  month  following. 

The  separation  in  the  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting  appears 
to  have  taken  place,  pretty  much  as  the  other  had.  The  "  Hicks- 
ite" party  complain  of  the  "  Orthodox,"  that  w-hen  a  certificate 
was  applied  for,  to  be  directed  to  the  Green  street  meeting  in 
Philadelphia,  the  clerk  did  not  make  a  minute,  because  it  was 
there  repcesented  that  that  monthly  meeting  had  been  laid  down 
by  its  quarterly  meeting.  This  has  been  represented  as  a  most 
outrageous  proceeding,  and  David  Clark  the  clerk  of  the  meeting, 
has  been  denounced  as  a  pope  in  consequence  of  it.  David 
Clark  being  the  clerk  of  the  Chesterfield  meeting,  he  was  in  point 
of  fact,  the  presiding  officer,  for  they  have  no  presiding  officer 
unless  it  be  the  clerk.  It  was  well  known  to  the  persons  present, 
that  the  Green  street  meeting  was  laid  down,  and  that  this  pro- 
position for  preparing  the  certificate  was  brought  forward  for  the 


104 

purpose  of  producing  a  separation  in  the  meeting.  The  clerk 
therefore  could  not  consistently  with  the  discipline  and  order  of 
the  society,  make  such  a  minute  as  the  "  Hicksite"  party  wished, 
because  no  such  monthly  meeting  as  Green  street  existed  as 
a  part  of  the  society  of  Friends.  He  did  not  enter  the  minute, 
and  he  could  not  have  done  it,  without  a  violation  of  his  duty  and 
of  the  order  and  discipline  of  the  society.  An  immediate  and 
total  separation  does  not  appear  to  have  followed,  for  though 
the  "  Hicksite"  party  organized  themselves  as  a  meeting  of  the 
new  society,  with  Jediah  Middleton  as  their  clerk,  yet  they  con- 
tinued to  meet  with  friends  until  the  12th  month  following,  when 
they  became  entirely  distinct.  The  meeting  of  the  "  Hicksite" 
party,  united  itself  to  their  yearly  meeting,  held  in  Green  and 
Cheiry  streets,  and  became  a  constituent  member  of  it ;  while 
the  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting  of  Friends  remained  a  branch 
of  the  Burlington  quarter  to  which  it  always  belonged,  and  which 
is  one  of  the  quarters  composing  the  Arch  street  yearly  meeting. 
The  question  now  is,  which  is  the  original  meeting  ?  This  can- 
not depend  on  the  fact  which  party  left  the  house.  They  say 
that  we  are  the  seceders  because  we  withdrew,  that  because  we 
left  the  house,  we  are  separatists.  This  is  a  very  convenient 
argument  for  them;  they  work  it  both  ways.  In  the  yearly 
meeting  when  they  withdrew,  it  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence,  it 
does  not  make  them  separatists,  but  when  in  the  monthly  meeting 
we  are  compelled  to  leave  the  house  in  order  to  hold  our  meeting 
in  quietness  and  order,  then  it  becomes  all-important,  and  the 
fact  of  our  withdrawing  makes  us  separatists  and  seceders. 
The  fact  however  is,  that  the  separation  took  place  in  9th 
month,  before  Friends  were  obliged  to  leave  the  house,  which 
was  not  until  the  12th  month  following.  In  the  10th  month 
1827,  the  "  Hicksite"  party  staid  behind  after  the  monibly  meet- 
ing had  been  regularly  closed,  organized  themselves  as  a  meeting 
of  the  new  society,  and  sent  representatives  to  "  their  contempla- 
ted yearly  meeting^*  The  truth  is,  that  the  question  which  is 
the  original  meeting,  does  not  depend  on  the  withdrawal,  the 
place  of  meeting,  or  on  the  adjournment,  nor  on  the  clerk's  going 

»  See  minute  of  the  monthly  meeting  of  the  "  Hicksites"  held  10th  month  1827. 
Exhibit,  L.  2. 


105 

with  those  who  withdraw,  or  staying  with  those  who  remain  ; 
these  are  not  nnaterial :  but  it  depends  upon  the  motive  and  ob- 
ject of  tiie  withdrawal.  If  they  withdraw,  or  remain  behind  to 
form  a  new  meeting,  this  is  what  gives  an  important  character 
to  the  act ;  but  if  they  withdraw  merely  to  transact  business 
connected  with  the  superior  meetings  to  which  they  originally 
belonged,  this  is  not  a  withdrawing  that  can  affect  their  rights. 
It  seems  that  the  "  Hicksite"  party  in  the  monthly  meeting  at- 
tempted to  remove  Mr.  Clark,  and  to  appoint  a  new  officer, 
because  he  did  not  make  a  minute  of  the  certificate  which  had 
been  applied  for  to  Green  street.  This  attempt  was  disorderly, 
and  contrary  both  to  discipline  and  usage.  Mr.  Clark  had  been 
regularly  appointed  for  a  year,  he  acted  in  the  conscientious 
discharge  of  his  duly,  according  to  the  discipline,  and  they  had 
no  right  to  remove  him  in  this  way.  At  the  meeting  in  ninth 
month,  after  the  business  of  the  monthly  meeting  had  been  regu- 
larly closed,  the  "  Hicksite"  party  got  together  and  appointed  a 
clerk  ;  and  when  they  met  in  tenth  month,  this  new  clerk 
took  his  seat  at  the  table,  nearly  one  hour  before  the  time  of 
gathering,  and  continued  there,  and  acted  in  defiance  of  the 
regular  clerk  of  the  monthly  meeting.  The  whole  of  these  pro- 
ceedings are  decidedly  of  a  party  character,  and  evince  clearly 
that  the  "  Hicksite"  party  were  acting  as  a  new  and  distinct 
society. 

This  leads  us  in  the  next  place  to  the  proceedings  which  took 
place  in  the  preparative  meeting  of  Chesterfield ;  and  I  refer  the 
court  to  the  evidence  of  Samuel  Craft  for  a  full  and  fair  narrative 
of  all  the  important  facts  which  occurred  there.  The  witness 
says,  "In  twelfth  month,  1827,  a  committee  appointed  at  Bur- 
lington quarterly  meeting,  and  also  a  committee  appointed  in 
Chesterfield  monthly  meeting  to  visit  and  assist  their  subordinate 
meetings,  both  attended  the  preparative  meeting  held  at  Borden- 
town  at  the  usual  time,  where  there  were  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  persons  who  were  members  of  Chesterfield  preparative 
meeting  present,  comprising  some  of  the  same  characters  that 
acted  in  the  disorderly  proceedings  of  the  Chesterfield  monthly 
meeting  of  the  tenth  month ;  and  after  the  meeting  had  set  a 
considerable  length  of  time,  but  before  any  friend  on  the  upper 
seat  in  the  meeting  had  shaken  hands,  which  is  our  usual  mode 


106 

of  closing  our  meetings  for  worship,  or  before  any  friend  had  vo- 
cally stated  that  it  was  the  usual  time  to  transact  the  concerns 
of  the  preparative  meeting,  most  of  the  members  rose  hastily  from 
their  seats  and  went  up  stairs  where  the  business  of  the  prepar- 
ative meeting  is  usually  transacted.  Those  who  were  there  in 
attendance  as  committees,  notwithstanding  the  unprecedented 
manner  in  which  the  members  of  the  meeting  had  retired, 
believed  it  best  to  follow  them.  When  the  committees  got  up 
stairs,  the  clerk  had  opened  or  was  about  to  open  the  preparative 
meeting.  It  was  then  stated  to  the  meeting  that  there  were  two 
committees  then  in  attendance,  viz.  one  from  the  quarterly  and 
the  other  from  the  monthly  meeting,  which  had  established  that 
preparative  meeting,  and  if  the  clerk  was  acting  as  clerk  of  that 
preparative  meeting  held  in  subordination  to  those  meetings 
mentioned,  we  had  minutes  of  our  appointment  which  we  wished 
to  present  to  the  meeting.  They  did  not  seem  disposed  to  give 
us  any  information  respecting  the  character  in  which  they  were 
acting,  and  urged  the  clerk  to  proceed  with  the  business,  which 
they  shortly  went  through  and  closed  the  meeting.  But  before 
the  meeting  was  closed,  one  or  more  of  the  committee  in  atten- 
dance remonstrated  against  these  disorderly  proceedings. 

"  On  the  following  day,  these  same  committees,  or  most  of  them 
who  were  then  present,  attended  Chesterfield  preparative  meet- 
ing, and  after  James  Brown,  who  was  then  at  the  table,  had 
opened  the  meeting,  and  was  about  to  proceed  with  the  business, 
one  of  the  committee  present,  that  was  under  appointment  from 
both  quarterly  and  monthly  meetings,  stated  to  the  meeting  that 
there  were  then  present  committees  from  Burlington  quarterly 
meeting,  and  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting,  appointed  to  visit  the 
subordinate  meetings  thereof,  and  that  if  the  person  then  at  the 
table,  was  acting  as  clerk  of  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting, 
held  in  subordination  to  the  quarterly  and  monthly  meetings  just 
mentioned,  they  [the  committee]  had  minutes  of  their  appoint- 
ment in  these  meetings  respectively,  which  the  individual  was 
ready  to  present,  if  the  person  [clerk]  was  so  acting.  The  meet- 
ing, or  those  who  appeared  to  assume  to  transact  the  business, 
declined  giving  any  direct  answer  to  the  enquiry.  Some  indivi- 
duals observed  that  they  knew  of  no  such  appointment  made  in 
Burlington  quarterly  meeting.     A  friend,  one  of  the  committee, 


107 

then  observed  that  ov.'ing  to  circumstances  that  had  transpired  in 
the  quarterly  meeting  in  the  preceding  eleventh  month,  the  quar- 
terly meeting  had  been  under  the  necessity  of  adjourning  its 
sitting  to  Burlington,  and  in  the  adjourned  sitting  so  held,  in 
taking  into  consideration  the  painful  circumstances  that  the  mem- 
bers within  its  borders  were  then  in,  it  had  then  and  there  made 
such  an  appointment.  A  person  then  replied  that  there  was  no 
use  in  discussing  the  subject,  for  it  was  well  understood.  This 
person  I  am  pretty  clear  was  Jediali  Middleton.  It  was  then 
suggested  whether  it  was  not  giving  countenance  to  such  disor- 
ders, to  remain  in  the  meeting  house,  when  the  persons  of  this 
description  were  transacting  what  they  assumed  to  call  the  busi- 
ness of  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting.  (I  do  not  profess  to 
give  the  Avords  verbatim,  but  the  substance  I  do.)  After  several 
sentiments  being  expressed,  it  was  concluded  that  it  would  be  more 
consistent  with  the  due  support  of  good  order,  to  retire  to  ano- 
ther place  and  transact  the  business  of  Chesterfield  preparative 
meeting.  This  view  of  the  subject  anjong  men  friends  was  com- 
municated to  the  women's  meeting,  with  which  they  accorded, 
and  the  members,  both  men  and  women,  of  that  preparative 
meeting,  who  were  disposed  to  adhere  to  and  support  the  estab- 
lished discipline  of  the  society,  together  with  the  committees  in 
attendance,  withdrew  from  the  meeting  house  and  retired  to  a 
private  house  not  far  off,  and  when  there  assembled  the  mem- 
bers of  that  preparative  meeting  first  appointed  a  clerk,  and  then 
proceeded  to  transact  the  business  of  Chesterfield  preparative 
meeting  ;  after  going  through  which,  they  took  into  consideration 
where  the  next  preparative  meeting  should  be  held,  and  it  was 
concluded  either  to  hold  it  there,  or  that  the  subject  should  be 
introduced  into  the  monthly  meeting  for  consideration,  and  that 
it  should  be  held  at  such  place  as  the  monthly  meeting  should 
direct.  But  before  we  withdrew  fi'om  the  meeting  house,  it  was 
distinctly  and  explicitly  stated  that  we  withdrew  to  avoid  conten- 
tion, and  in  order  to  transact  the  business  consistently,  and  that 
we  considered  that  those,  who  had  been  accessary  to  our  being 
under  the  necessity  of  thus  withdrawing,  were  intruding  on  our 
rights,  and  by  so  retiring  from  the  house,  we  did  not  thereby  re- 
linquish any  rights  that  we  were  justly  entitled  to."  vol.  I.  Ev.pp. 
338-340.     Here  then  we  have  a  full  development  of  all  the  cir- 


108 

cumstances  which  took  place  at  the  preparative  meeting  of  Ches- 
terfield, when  the  separation  occurred.  Was  there  any  act  done 
there  by  which  we  ceased  to  be  that  preparative  meeting,  or 
admitted  the  right  of  the  adverse  party  to  this  character?  Cer- 
tainly not.  Friends  withdrew  from  the  house  because  they  could 
not,  consistently  with  discipline,  countenance  the  proceedings  of 
those  persons  who  had  seceded  from  the  original  and  proper  head, 
and  attached  themselves  to  the  new  yearly  meeting  of  the 
"  Hicksites,"  held  in  Green  street.  They  withdrew  for  the  very 
purpose  of  maintaining  and  continuing  their  connexion  with  the 
original  monthly,  quarterly  and  yearly  meeting,  of  which  the 
Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  was  a  constituent  branch  at 
the  time  when  the  fund  now  in  controversy  was  created.  They 
withdrew  to  maintain  their  subordination  to  these  meetings,  to 
which  the  discipline  of  the  society  bound  them  to  be  subordinate. 
The  "  Hicksite"  party  in  that  preparative  meeting  had  deter- 
mined to  go  over  to  the  new  society,  and  its  new  meetings,  and 
w^ere  then  acting  in  subordination  to  and  as  a  part  of  it.  What 
then  was  to  be  done  ?  Must  friends  remain,  and  go  over  with 
them  to  the  new  society  ?  There  was  no  other  alternative  left, 
but  to  withdraw,  and  they  accordingly  did  so,  stating  at  the  same 
time,  that  by  so  doing  they  relinquished  none  of  their  rights,  but 
that  being  compelled  by  the  necessity  of  the  case  they  retired 
from  the  house  for  the  purpose  of  transacting  the  business  of 
Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  in  connexion  with  its  proper 
yearly  and  quarterly  and  monthly  meeting.  Was  there  any 
thing  in  this  act  by  which  they  forfeited  their  character  to  the 
true  preparative  meeting  ?  So  far  from  it,  that  the  facts  are  the 
ver}-^  reverse.  It  is  all  important  to  look  at  the  motive  which 
induced  them  to  take  this  step,  and  in  doing  so,  we  find  that  it 
was  with  the  avowed  object  of  maintaining  that  character,  and 
of  transacting  their  business  in  harmony  and  order,  and  consist- 
ently with  the  rules  of  their  discipline. 

Which  then,  I  would  ask,  is  the  same  preparative  meeting 
with  that  for  whose  use  the  fund  was  originally  created  ?  Is  it 
the  one  which  v^e  represent,  or  is  it  the  adverse  party  1  They 
cannot  both  be  the  same  preparative  meeting,  one  must  be  a 
spurious  meeting,  the  other  the  real  preparative  meeting  of 
Chesterfield.     What  have   we   done   to  lose  our  rights,  or  to 


109 

change  our  character,  or  that  they  should  assume  the  rights  or 
privileges  which  belong  to  us.  They  nnake  no  charge  against 
us  of  having  changed  our  religious  principles,  or  departed  from 
the  society  of  Friends,  or  its  discipline ;  nor  of  having  thrown 
off  our  subordination  or  connection  with  the  proper  yearly 
meeting.  All  that  they  can  or  do  allege,  is,  that  we  would  not 
remain  in  the  meeting  house,  and  unite  in  the  transaction  of 
business  with  men  who  were  determined  to  withdraw  from  the 
regular  and  established  meetings  of  the  society.  But  the  charge 
we  make  against  them,  and  which,  I  think,  we  have  proved  to  be 
true,  is  a  much  more  important  one.  We  say  they  have  attached 
themselves  to  a  monthly,  quarterly,  and  a  yearly  meeting,  which 
have  seceded,  have  separated  themselves  from  the  society  of 
Friends.  We  belong  to  the  society  and  to  the  meetings  to  which 
we  always  belonged.  You  have  joined  a  new  one.  We  adhere 
to  our  old  principles  and  to  our  old  meetings,  you  have  attached 
yourselves  to  new  ones.  We  do  not  pretend  that  they  are  to 
lose  their  rights,  in  consequence  merely  of  what  passed  in  the 
yearly  meeting  of  1827.  But  we  contend  that  the  loss  they 
have  sustained,  is  in  consequence  of  their  own  acts :  of  their  own 
free  choice  to  join  the  new  society  and  its  meetings.  After  the 
separation  which  took  place  from  the  society  and  the  establish- 
ment of  the  new  meeting  in  tenth  month  1827,  they  had  their 
option  either  to  remain  with  the  old  society  or  to  join  the  new 
one.  If  they  had  not  joined  the  new  one,  but  remained  firm 
with  the  old  society,  and  changed  neither  their  principles  nor 
their  connection,  no  blame  could  have  attached  to  them,  they 
would  have  retained  all  their  rights  and  privileges  as  members 
of  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting.  It  is  on  account  of  their 
own  act,  their  own  voluntary  election,  that  we  say  they  have 
lost  their  rights.  As  individuals  they  have  no  right  to  this  fund, 
as  members  of  the  preparative  meeting  for  whose  use  it  was 
created,  they  have  rights  to  it,  but  when  they  cease  to  be  mem- 
bers of  that  preparative  meeting  subordinate  to  the  monthly, 
quarterly  and  yearly  meeting,  to  which  it  belonged  when  the 
fund  was  created,  then  those  rights  cease.  We  insist  that  by 
separating  from  their  head,  and  absolving  themselves  from  its 
authority,  and  taking  a  new  one,  they  have  ceased  to  be  mem- 
bers of  the  original  preparative  meeting  of  Chesterfield,  and 


no 

have  lost  their  rights.  It  is  not  material  to  inquire  whether 
they  have  forfeited  their  rights,  or  lost  them.  I  do  not  contend 
that  they  have  forfeited  them,  but  that  they  have  lost  them,  and 
for  our  purpose  the  effect  is  the  same. 

A  member  of  the  society  of  Friends,  has  no  rights  which  he 
can  transfer  when  he  ceases  to  be  a  member;  if  he  withdraws 
from  the  society  he  ceases  to  have  those  rights ;  if  he  returns 
again,  and  unites  with  them,  his  rights  are  renewed.  We  do 
not  ask  the  judgment  of  this  court,  to  forfeit  the  rights  of  the 
"  Hicksite"  party  ;  we  only  ask  the  court  to  say  that  these  men 
having  ceased  to  be  members  of  the  preparative  meeting  of 
Chesterfield,  for  whose  use  the  fund  was  created,  cease  to 
have  any  right  of  control  or  disposition  of  it.  The  court  have 
no  alternative  but  to  give  it  to  one  party  or  the  other.  It  belongs 
to  the  same  preparative  meeting  for  which  it  was  originally 
designed.  It  cannot  belong  to  both ;  both  cannot  be  that  one 
same  preparative  meeting ;  one  must  be  the  true  preparative 
meeting,  the  other  a  counterfeit.  If  we  are  the  true  preparative 
meeting  it  belongs  to  us ;  if  we  are  not  we  have  no  right  to  it. 
But  what  can  deprive  us  of  our  character,  as  the  same  prepara- 
tive meeting  ?  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  same  individuals  or 
the  same  number  of  individuals  should  remain,  in  order  to  consti- 
tute the  same  preparative  meeting,  for  the  individuals  may 
change  and  the  meeting  remain  the  same.  Nor  does  it  depend 
upon  numbers;  a  majority,  or  a  minority  may  separate  and 
unite  with  other  societies  or  meetings  under  a  new  head,  but 
those  who  go  away  cannot  deprive  those  who  remain  of  the 
character  of  the  same  preparative  meeting.  It  matters  not  how 
many  go,  or  how  many  stay  ;  if  five  remain,  or  if  only  one 
remain,  the  trust  must  remain  for  the  benefit  of  that  one.  The 
gentleman  contends  that  the  majority  is  with  them,  and  that 
the  minority  cannot  have  the  character  of  the  true  preparative 
meeting.  They  have  yet  to  show  that  they  are  the  majority, 
but  suppose  they  were,  will  the  gentleman's  argument  hold  1 
Suppose  a  majority  of  the  meeting  had  become  Presbyterians, 
would  they  still  be  the  same  preparative  meeting  or  could  they 
take  the  property  with  them  ?  If  they  had  turned  Roman 
Catholics,  would  they  still  be  members  of  the  same  preparative 
meeting  of  Friends  ?     This  would  be  absurd  and  preposterous. 


Ill 

The  whole  matter  depends  on  the  question  whether  they  continue 
members  of  the  same  society,  and  attached  to  the  same  prepara- 
tive meeting.  If  they  have  lost  this  character  they  have  lost 
their  right  to  the  property.  If  they  may  lose  it  by  changing 
their  faith,  their  religious  doctrines,  they  may  lose  it  in  any 
other  way  by  which  they  cease  to  be  members  of  the  same 
society,  and  connected  with  the  same  head.  If  we  have  not 
shown  the  fact  that  they  are  not  members  of  the  same  prepara- 
tive meeting,  we  have  failed  in  making  out  our  case  and  must  sub- 
mit. But  we  insist  that  there  cannot  be  a  right  in  any  majority, 
(even  supposing  the  "  Hicksite"  party  to  have  it,)  simply  because 
they  are  a  majority,  to  take  the  control  and  disposition  of  this 
fund.  It  belongs  to  the  same  preparative  meeting,  for  whose  use 
the  fund  was  created,  and  the  "  Hicksite"  party  cannot  be  that 
same  meeting,  because  they  have  left  it,  and  attached  themselves 
to  a  new  yearly  meeting,  and  a  new  head  which  did  not  exist 
when  the  fund  was  created. 

I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  follow  the  learned  and  eloquent 
counsel  over  the  ground  which  he  took  in  examining  the  disci- 
pline of  the  society,  and  endeavouring  to  elude  the  control  which 
the  superior  has  over  the  inferior  meeting.  He  mistook  the 
ground  upon  which  we  intended  to  rely  ;  he  supposed  we  meant 
to  insist  upon  a  forfeiture  in  consequence  of  the  setting  up  and 
establishing,  by  others,  a  new  yearly  meeting.  Not  so.  We 
set  up  against  them  their  ovm  acts  :  we  rely  on  these  to  make 
out  our  case.  How  can  it  affect  this  question,  whether  the 
superior  meeting  have  power  over  an  inferior  meeting  to  lay  it 
down  or  not?  It  is  true  the  discipline  of  the  society  gives  the 
superior  meeting  unlimited  control ;  it  sets  no  bounds  to  the  au- 
thority ;  yet  I  do  not  mean  to  contend  that  the  superior  meeting 
has  original  and  absolute  control  over  the  property  of  the  infe- 
rior. We  do  not  ask  the  court  so  to  decide,  nor  whether  they 
have  any  control  at  all.  It  has  no  bearing  at  all  on  this  ques- 
tion. We  are  looking  for  the  character  of  the  claimants  now 
before  the  court ;  what  is  the  character  they  assume,  and  what 
is  the  character  which  justly  belongs  to  them.  This  does  not 
depend  upon  the  power  of  superior  over  inferior  meetings ;  it 
depends  upon  the  acts  of  the  respective  parties,  and  when  they 


112 

cease  to  be  members  of  the  original  society,  tlieir  rights  to  its 
property  cease,  whether  this  inferiority  exists  or  not. 

The  gentleman  has  extolled  the  beauty  of  the  Quaker  disci- 
pline, and  of  their  system  of  government.  I  agree  with  him.  It 
has  many  things  in  it  worthy  of  admiration.  I  admire  it  for  its 
simplicity  and  beauty  ;  but  I  cannot  admire  it  for  its  weakness, 
and  if  the  discoveries  which  the  gentleman  has  made  be  correct, 
it  is,  in  one  point,  very  weak.  The  gentleman  has  discovered, 
it  seems,  that  the  superior  meeting  has  no  control  or  authority 
over  the  inferior;  his  first  position  was  that  they  had  no  control, 
but  to  give  advice.  But  he  piesently  grows  bolder  and  says, 
they  cannot  even  give  advice,  vnless  their  advice  is  previo7isIy 
asked.  He  tells  your  honours,  that  a  monthly  meeting  cannot 
advise  a  preparative  meeting,  unless  the  latter  choose  to  ask 
that  advice.  They  may  see  them  departing  from  the  discipline, 
from  the  principles  of  the  society,  or  doing  wTong  in  any  other 
way,  yet  they  cannot  interfere  unless  the  preparative  meeting 
invite  them  to  do  so.  If  this  be  the  case,  it  is  certainly  a  great 
defect.  But  does  the  discipline  tell  us  any  thing  of  this  sort  ? 
Does  it  recognize  this  independence  and  irresponsibility  in  the  in- 
ferior meetings  1  Far  otherwise  ;  the  paragraph  which  I  cited  yes- 
terday, speaks  a  language  directly  the  reverse.  It  says  in  express 
terms,  "  The  connection  and  subordination  of  our  meetings  for 
discipline  are  thus  :  preparative  meetings  are  accountable  to  the 
monthly ;  monthly  to  the  quartei'ly ;  and  the  quarterly  to  the 
yearly  meeting.  So  that  if  the  yearly  meeting  be  at  any  time 
dissatisfied  with  the  proceedings  of  any  inferior  meeting,  or  a 
quarterly  meeting  with  the  proceedings  of  either  of  its  monthly 
meetings,  or  a  monthly  meeting  with  the  proceedings  of  either  of 
its  preparative  meetings,  such  meeting  or  meetings  ought  with 
readiness  and  meekness  to  render  an  account  thereof  when  re- 
quired." Here  is  nothing  like  the  inferior  meeting  asking  advice, 
but  at  any  time  when  the  superior  meeting  is  dissatisfied  with 
the  proceedings  of  an  inferior,  it  may  call  it  to  account,  and  the 
inferior  is  to  answer  that  call  with  meekness  and  readiness. 
Look  at  the  practice  of  the  society  ;  do  they  not  constantly  ap- 
point committees  to  advise  and  assist  the  inferior  meetings  ? 
Has  not  this  been  the  custom  from  the  earliest  periods  of  its  ex- 
istence ?     Fortunately  for  them,  the  counsel  has  discovered  their 


113 

error  on  this  point.  It  is  time  they  should  leave  every  meeting 
to  its  own  control  and  pleasure;  and  if  the  inferior  meetings 
never  choose  to  ask  advice,  the  superior  must  not  attempt  to 
give  it;  they  are  fiee  from  all  control.  Such  an  idea  never  was 
entertained  in  the  society.  When  the  yearly  meeting  appointed 
its  committee  in  1827,  the  "  Hicksites"  never  started  this  as  an 
objection.  No  man  in  the  yearly  meeting  had  any  idea  of  such 
a  thing.  When  that  committee  went  down  to  the  quarterly  and 
monthly  meetings,  v.'ere  they  told,  that  as  they  had  not  asked 
the  advice  and  assistance  of  the  yearly  meeting,  it  had  no  right 
to  send  a  committee  down  1  Did  the  inferior  meetings  say, '  When 
we  ask  the  advice  of  the  yearly  meeting,  it  may  send  you,  but 
until  then  you  have  no  right  to  advise  us'? — no  such  thing. 
Great  as  was  the  hostility  of  the  "  Hicksite"  party  to  this  com- 
mittee, such  an  objection  was  never  once  advanced.  They  were 
opposed  to  it  on  another  ground ;  they  refused  to  receive  the 
advice  of  the  committee  on  the  ground  that  a  separation  had 
taken  place,  and  that  it  was  not  appointed  by  the  yearly  meet- 
ing to  which  they  vvere  attached.  If  superior  meetings  can  give 
no  advice  but  when  they  are  asked  for  it,  their  superiority  is 
nominal,  and  the  subordination  and  accountability  prescribed  by 
the  discipline  are  mere  empty  sounds.  I  cannot  admire  this  sys- 
tem for  its  weakness,  though  I  may  for  its  simplicity.  When  it 
is  represented  to  me  as  the  tie  which  is  to  unite  the  society,  and 
hold  it  together  as  one  body,  and  yet  that  there  is  no  bond  of 
union,  no  responsibility,  no  subordination  in  its  provisions ;  when 
the  gentleman  tells  me,  that  the  superior  meetings  have  no  au- 
thority or  control  over  the  inferior  ;  that  each  one  may  act  as  it 
pleases,  independent  of  all  the  rest,  and  yet  that  this  is  a  system 
of  church  government,  I  cannot  say  I  admire  it.  And  I  suspect 
that  the  gentleman  will  never  prevail,  even  with  his  own  party, 
to  adopt  these  notions.  Their  superior  meetings  will  not  cease 
to  exercise  control  over  the  inferior,  nor  will  they  consent  to  ap- 
point committees  to  give  advice  only  when  their  advice  is  asked. 
Halliday  Jackson  in  his  testimony,  (vol.  It.  p.  142)  tells  us,  that 
since  their  separation  in  1827,  the  "  Hicksite"  yearly  meeting 
has  already  appointed  three  such  committees,  and  I  presume 
they  will  continue  to  do  so,  whenever  they  think  it  expedient, 
without  consulting  the  inferior  meetings. 

p 


114 

It  cannot  be  of  any  importance  in  the  decision  of  this  cause, 
that  the  "  Hicksite"  party  have  got  possession  and  control  of  this 
school.     The  gentleman  seems  to  think,  that  because  the  school 
house  and  school  are  in  their  hands,  they  must  be  considered  as 
entitled  to  this  money.     This,  if  it  please  the  court,  is  the  very 
right  in  question.     If  they  are  the  same  preparative   meeting, 
they  are  entitled  to  it ;  but  if  they  are  usurpers,  and  have  taken 
from  us  our  rights  and  property,  without  the  authority  of  law,  it 
must  be  restored  to  us.     It  is  idle  to  say,  that  as  we  have  taken 
possession  of  the  property,  and  have  it  in  our  hands,  it  is  ours, 
and  we  will  keep  it.     This  is  a  very  weak  argument,  and  a  very 
bad  one ;  one  which  would  cover  almost  any  species  of  injustice. 
The  question  before  the  court  is  one  of  right,  and  not  of  posses- 
sion.    Does  not  the  right  of  the  trustees  of  the  school,  and  of  the 
treasurer,  depend  on  the  character  of  the  persons  who  appoint 
them  ?     The  "  Hicksite"  party  say,  that  they   have  trustees, 
and   that   these  trustees  have  appointed  their  treasurer ;  that 
these  officers  have  been  regulaily  appointed,  and  that  therefore 
they  are  clothed  with  authority  to  demand  this  money.     Be  it 
so ;  their  officers  can  only  derive  their  authority  from  the  meet- 
ing which  appointed  them,  and  if  that  meeting  has  no  right  to 
control  the  fund,  its  officers  can  have  none.     We  also  have  trus- 
tees, and  a  treasurer,  and  we  want  the  money  to  use  for  the 
purpose  for  which  it  was  intended,  to  apply  it  to  the  use  of  those 
who  are  entitled  to  it.     The  opposite  party  tell  us,  that  the 
school  is  doing  great  good  ;  that  they  apply  the  fund  to  the  pur- 
pose for  which  it  was  created.     Supposing  this  to  be  the  fact, 
will  it  not  be  properly  applied  if  they  have  to  give  it  up  ?     We 
wish  to  obtain  the  money  for  the  purpose  of  using  it  as  originally 
contemplated  in  the  trust,  and  if  we  do  not  so  use  it,  there  is  a 
power  to  compel  us.     The  right  of  these  trustees,  and  of  the 
treasurer,  must  depend  entirely  on  the  character  of  those  who 
appointed  them.     If  the  character  of  these  is  good,  if  they  are 
the  same  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting   recognized  in   the 
trust,  then  their  title  is  good  ;  if  they  are  not,  they  have  neither 
right  nor  title  to  this  property. 

I  have  one  more  remark  to  make  on  this  part  of  my  subject, 
and  then  I  have  done  with  it.  The  trust  cannot  change,  although 
the  trustee  may  change  ;  and  if  the  trustee  live  in  Philadelphia 


115 

or  in  London,  or  elsewhere,  the  arm  of  this  court  is  strong  enough, 
and  long  enough,  to  prevent  the  fund  from  being  diverted  from 
the  purpose  for  which  it  was  raised.  If  the  person  who  holds 
this  money,  were  to  attempt  to  convey  it  away  for  the  use  of  a 
meeting  in  London,  or  in  Philadelphia,  or  any  where  else,  other 
than  for  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting,  he  could  not  do  it. 
If  the  attempt  was  made,  this  court  would  grant  an  injunction, 
and  annul  the  conveyance.  The  principle  is  a  very  simple  and 
safe  one,  the  trustee  may  change,  the  trust  cannot ;  this  court  will 
take  care  of  the  trust  fund,  will  follow  it  into  the  hands  of  a  third 
person  or  wherever  it  may  be  conveyed,  and  see  that  it  is  faith- 
fully applied  to  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  originally  intended. 

With  these  remarks  I  shall  leave  this  part  of  the  case,  not 
doubting  but  the  industry  of  the  court  will  supply  any  deficiency 
which  may  have  occurred  in  my  examination  of  this  subject.  I 
think  I  have  now  made  out  my  first  proposition,  viz.  that  a 
separation  of  the  "  Hie ksite"  party  from  the  society  of  Friends 
has  taken  place  ;  that  the  meeting  held  annually  in  Green  street, 
is  not  a  continuance  of  the  original  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia, 
but  that  it  is  a  separate,  independent  and  distinct  meeting,  en- 
tirely unconnected  with  the  other.  This  being  the  case,  the 
quarterly,  monthly  and  preparative  meetings,  connected  with  and 
composing  it,  must  be  of  the  same  character,  must  be  separat- 
ists, and  subject  to  all  the  legal  consequences  of  that  character. 

I  shall  next  contend  that  this  schism  which  ha&  taken  place, 
has  been  produced  by  a  difference  of  opinion  on  religious  doctrines. 
Of  the  facts  of  the  separation  and  t  he  circumstances  under  which 
it  occurred,  we  are  already  in  possession  ;  we  are  now  to  look  to 
the  cause  which  gave  rise  to  it.  We  allege  one  cause,  they 
attribute  it  to  others.  W^e  contend  that  it  originated  in  a  differ- 
ence of  religious  doctrines,  they  say  that  it  arose  from  violations 
of  the  discipline.  J>iet  us  then  proceed  to  the  investigation,  and 
see  if  we  can  ascertain  the  true  source  of  the  unfortunate  state 
of  things  which  exist  among  them. 

And  here  it  will  probably  be  supposed  that  I  have  a  difficult 
task  to  perform  ;  indeed,  the  gentleman  who  preceded  me  has 
proclaimed  that  I  am  about  to  attempt  a  task,  which  is  not  only 
difficult,  but  impossible ;  that  I  cannot  ascertain  what  are  the 
doctrines  of  the  primitive  Friends,  nor  the  doctrines  of  the  society 


116 

now,  nor  of  the  parties  before  this  court ;  that  there  is  neither 
test  nor  standard  by  which  their  doctrines  can  be  tried,  and  that 
therefore  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  what  they  are.     But  if  I 
am  not  much  mistaken,  I  shall  lay  before  this  court  a  body  of  evi- 
dence upon  this  point,  which  must  carry  conviction  to   every 
mind.     If  credit  is  due  to  human  testimony,  to  written  documents, 
to  solemn  declarations  of  faith,  officially  made,  to  the  proceedings 
of  the  yearly  meeting,  or  to  years  of  experience  in  religious  soci- 
ety, I  think  I  shall  satisfy  the  court,  not  only  that  the  society  of 
Friends  have  fundamental  doctrines,  a  belief  in  which  is  essential 
to   membership,  but  also  a  departure  from  these  fundamental 
doctrines  on  the  part  of  the  "  Hicksites."     Upon  this  branch  of 
the  subject  I  shall,  in  the  first  place,  lay  before  the  court  a  doc- 
ument proceeding   from  the  party  themselves,  of  a  character 
which  must  place  them  in  an  unenviable  predicament.      Fortu- 
nately for  the  cause  of  truth,  we  have  possession  of  a  document 
that  can  leave  no  room  to  doubt  as  to  the  real  ground  of  the  sepa- 
ration.    When  that  party  thought  lit  to  separate  from  the  soci- 
ety in  the  Philadelphia  yearly  meeting, "  to  make  a  quiet  retreat," 
in  a  moment  of  honest  feeling  and  candour,  witiiout  knowing  the 
legal  consequences  of  the  act,  the}'  thought  proper,  in  order  to 
justify  their  conduct  to  the  world,  and  especially  to  the  members 
of  their  own  society,  to  prepare  and  publish  an  address  shewing 
the  true  grounds  of  their  secession.      They  issued  this  address 
for  the  very  purpose  of  telling  the  whole  community  what  were 
the   causes  which  induced  them  to  take  the  important  step  of 
withdrawing  from  the  society  with  which  they  had  been  con- 
nected.    It  is  their  manifesto,  and  they  must  stand  by  it ;  they 
are  solemnly  bound  by  the  declarations  it  contains.     It  is  not  a 
hasty  or  sudden,  but  a  deliberate  and  sober  act ;  it  is  not  the  act 
of  one  individual,  or  of  a  few  individuals,  but  the  act  of  the  whole 
body  there  assembled,  uniting  in  one  common  address,  and  thereby 
solemnly  declaring  to  the  world  the  principles  upon  which  they 
have  separated.     The  document  to  which  1  allude  is  the  address 
issued  by  the  "  Hicksite"  party,  at  their  meeting  in  Green  street 
meeting  house,  in  fourth  month,  1827.     It  is  to  be  found  in  the 
appendix   to  vol.  II.  of  Ev.  p.    453.     It    holds   this  language  : 
"  With  this  great  object  in  view,  our  attention  has  been  turned  to 
the  present  condition  of  this  yearly  meeting,  and  its  diiferent 


117 

branches,  and  by  evidence  on  every  hand  we  are  constrained  to 
declare  that  the  unity  of  this  body  is  interrupted  ;  that  a  division 
exists  among  us,  developing  in  its  progress,  views  which  appear 
incompatible  with  each  other,  and  feelings  averse  to  a  reconcili- 
ation. Doctrines  held  by  one  •part  of  society,  and  which  ice  be- 
lieve to  be  sound  and  edifying,  are  pronounced  by  the  other  part 
to  be  unsound  and  spurious.  From  this  has  resulted  a  state  of 
things  that  has  proved  destructive  of  peace  and  tranquillity,  and 
in  which  the  fruits  of  love  and  condescension  have  been  blasted, 
and  the  comforts  and  enjoyments  even  of  social  intercourse  great- 
ly diminished.  Measures  have  been  pursued  which  we  deem 
oppressive,  and  in  their  nature  and  tendency  calculated  to  under- 
mine and  destroy  those  benefits,  to  establish  and  perpetuate 
which,  should  be  the  purpose  of  every  religious  association." 
Here  is  language  too  plain  and  explicit  to  be  misunderstood  or 
evaded.  It  is  a  clear  and  positive  declaration  that  doctrines 
formed  the  original  ground  of  the  separation.  Whatever  subse- 
quent difficulties  they  may  complain  of,  or  whatever  "  measures 
may  have  been  pursued  which  they  deemed  oppressive,"  they 
declare  them  all  to  have  resulted  from  the  differences  which  ex- 
isted in  reference  to  religious  doctrines.  Doctrines  which  one 
part  considered  sound  and  edifying,  are  considered  by  the  other 
to  be  unsound  and  spurious;  and ^rom  this  cause,  all  the  difficul- 
ties took  their  rise.  Can  there  be  a  doubt  then,  that  here  was 
a  division,  a  schism,  in  this  religious  society,  arising  from  disunion 
on  matters  of  faith,  on  fundamental  doctrines  ?  The  seceders 
themselves  so  declare  it  to  the  world  ;  it  is  now  too  late  to  deny 
it,  and  attempt  to  find  some  other  cause.  Their  declaration  is 
either  true  or  false.  Will  they  acknowledge  it  to  be  false?  No. 
I  will  not  say,  they  dare  not  acknowledge  it  to  be  so,  for  I  know 
not  what  they  dare  not  do,  but  they  cannot  now  change  their 
ground,  and  the  attempt  to  do  so  which  has  been  made  cannot 
avail  them  any  thing;  they  stand  fully  committed,  and  although 
their  ingenious  counsel  have  used  much  adroitness  in  endeavour- 
ing to  make  it  appear  that  it  was  not  doctrine  which  produced 
the  separation,  but  violations  of  the  discipline,  yet  their  own  clients 
fully  admit  the  point  for  which  we  contend,  viz.  that  doctrine  is 
at  the  foundation  of  this  schism.  It  is  in  vain  to  go  back  to  the 
year  1819,  to  the  appointment  of  a  clerk  in  the  yearly  meeting  of 


118 

1827,  to  the  preparation  of  the  extracts  by  the  meeting  for  suf- 
ferings in  1822,  or  to  any  other  period  or  fact,  and  endeavour  to 
manufacture  one  or  all  into  the  cause  of  the  schism.     Here  is 
their  own  admission,  their  own  voluntary  publication  given  to  the 
world  as  the  solemn  declaration  by  which  they  meant  to  stand  or 
fall.     We  have  only  to  point  you  to  that,  to  answer  all  that  has 
been  said  about  violations  of  the  discipline ;  the  party  must  stand 
or  fall  by  it,  there  is  no  possibility  of  escape.     It  is  the  standard 
by  which  they  must  be  tried  ;  a  standard  too  of  their  own  erec- 
tion.    A  party  cannot  publish  to  the  world  one  state  of  facts, 
and  then  come  before  the  court  and  rely  on  another  state  of  facts. 
It  is  proved  then  by  their  own  voluntary  confession  that  the  con- 
troversy was  about  doctrines,  and  that  this  produced  the  separa- 
tion.    I  shall  presently  enquire  what  the  doctrines  were  which 
the  "  Hicksite"  party  held  to  be  sound  and  edifying,  and  which 
the  others  pronounced  to  be  unsound  and  spurious.     I  might  re- 
fer the  court  to  a  great  body  of  evidence  in   the  depositions  of 
the  witnesses,  proving  the  same  position,  but  when  we  are  in  pos- 
session of  a  document  so  full  and  explict,  and  coming  from  the 
party  themselves,  it  is  infinitely  superior  to  the  testimony  of  any 
witness.     There  is,  however,  one  part  of  the  evidence  to  which 
I  will  call  your  attention.     Abraham  Lower,  one  of  their  own 
witnesses,  a  "  Hicksite"  preacher,  infected  with  their  new  doc- 
trines, and  who  has  taken  a  very  active  part  in  the  secession, 
he  informs  us  that  the  difficulties  and  divisions  in  the  society  did 
arise  from  doctrines.    As  this  is  the  testimony  of  one  of  their  lead- 
ers, and  very  short,  I  beg  leave  to  read  it.     The  witness  having 
stated  that  the  address  of  the  "  Hicksite"  party  in  fourth  month, 
1827,  was  united  with  and  issued  by  their  meeting,  this  question 
was   asked — "  That  address  in  alluding  to   the   circumstances 
which  interrupted  the  unity  of  the  yearly  meeting,  and  produced  a 
division,  describes,  as  one  of  the  causes,  in  these  w^ords, '  doctrines 
held  by  one  part  of  society  and  which  we  believe  to  be  sound  and 
edifying  are  pronounced  by  the  other  part  to  be  unsound  and 
spurious.     From  this  has  resulted    a    state  of  things  that    has 
proved  destructive  of  peace  and  tranquillity,  and  in  which  the 
fruits  of  love  and  condescension  have  been  blasted,  and  the  com- 
forts and  enjoyments  even  of  social  intercourse  greatly  diminished.' 
Will  you  please  to  state  what  these  doctrines  are  to  which  the 


119 

address  here  alludes?"  The  witness  answers.  "I  think  it  not 
very  lii<ely  that  I  shall.  But  the  circumstances  stated  I  believe 
to  be  matter  of  fact.  It  was  on  account  of  doctrines  that  that 
body  of  elders  were  organized  as  a  party  against  Elias  Hicks; 
who  were  as  before  stated  a  part  of  that  caucus  held  at  the  close 
of  the  meeting  for  sulferings.  The  same  individuals  who  were 
most  active  in  producing  the  rupture  that  then  occurred  in  that 
unwarrantable  attack  upon  Elias  Hicks,  and  more  indirectly, 
though  really,  upon  the  monthly  meeting  of  Jericho,  of  which 
Elias  Hicks  was  a  member,  and  had  given  him  a  certificate  of  its 
unity  with  him,  which  of  course  included  their  approbation  of 
the  doctrines  he  preached,  and  of  Westbury  quarter,  of  which 
Jericho  monthly  meeting  was  a  branch,  and  of  the  yearly  meeting 
of  New  York.  It  was  on  doctrines  that  Joseph  Whitall  arraign- 
ed him  before  that  self  constituted  body  who  thus  arrayed  them- 
selves in  opposition  to  Elias  Hicks,  and  those  who  approved  of 
him,"  &c.     Vol.  I.  Ev.  p.  473,  4. 

Here  is  a  candid  admission  by  one  of  their  own  preachers,  a 
member  of  the  junto  with  whom  the  idea  of  separation  originated, 
that  doctrine  was  the  ground  of  the  separation,  and  that  it  was 
on  account  of  Elias  Hicks'  doctrines,  that  the  elders  of  Philadel- 
phia, against  whom  so  much  complaint  has  been  made,  took  the 
steps  they  did  in  reference  to  him. 

My  next  enquiry  is,  what  are  the  doctrines  held  by  one  part 
of  the  society,  and  which  they  believe  to  be  sound  and  edifying, 
but  which  the  other  part  pronounce  to  be  unsound  and  spurious. 
The  answer  to  this  enquiry  is  already  so  obvious,  that  any  remark 
of  mine  would  seem  almost  superfluous.  Your  honours  will  per- 
ceive that  Elias  Hicks  and  the  opposition  to  him  and  his  doctrine, 
is  the  great  burden  of  complaint  with  all  the  witnesses  of  that 
party ;  their  whole  cause  rests  on  him  and  his  doctrines.  But 
here  we  are  met  with  another  difficulty  ;  the  learned  gentleman 
who  preceded  me,  gravely  assures  us  that  the  society  of  Friends 
have  no  doctrines;  that  the  only  thing  necessary  with  them  is  a 
belief  in  the  light  within.  Is  it  not  a  most  astonishing  thing,  will 
any  man  believe  it,  that  this  society  should  be  contending  about 
doctrines,  that  this  controversy  should  actually  be  carried  to  such 
an  extent  as  to  produce  a  severance  of  the  society,  and  yet  that 
they  should  have  no  doctrines  about  which  to  contend  1     Have 


120 

they  doctrines  to  dispute  about,  to  divide,  to  sever  them,  and  yet 
no  doctrines  to  unite  in,  for  the  worship  of  God  ?  Can  any  man 
credit  such  a  contradiction  as  this  ?  A  society  holding  no  doctrine, 
nothing  but  a  profession  of  the  inward  Jight  or  divine  spirit, 
leaving  every  man  to  beHevc  and  worship  as  he  thinks  fit,  with 
no  faith,  no  rule  or  test  of  conscience,  or  judgment  in  matters  of 
behef,  and  yet  this  very  society  disputing,  contending  and  even 
separating  about  doctrines!  Can  they  suppose  they  will  ever 
convince  this  court,  or  any  man  of  the  truth  of  this  allegation  ? 
No.  The  facts  are  too  stubborn  ;  if  they  have  doctrines  to  dis- 
pute about,  we  want  to  hnd  out  what  they  are.  If  they  diti'er 
on  points  of  faith,  if  the  schism  has  arisen  from  this  cause,  one 
party  must  have  embraced  new  doctrines,  while  the  other  party 
adhere  to  the  ancient  principles  of  Friends.  Here  then  we  have 
clear  ground  for  the  position  we  have  taken  before  the  court. 
What  were  these  doctrines  ?  Was  it  the  doctrine  of  the  influ- 
ence of  the  divine  spirit  on  the  mind  of  man  ?  This  is  not  pre- 
tended by  any  witness.  It  is  no  where  alleged  that  this  formed 
tlie  subject  of  controversy.  No.  It  was  the  doctrines  of  Elias 
Hicks — the  doctrines  promulgated  by  him  to  the  world — which 
he  communicated  in  his  letters,  and  in  his  public  testimonies  to 
those  who  assembled  to  hear  him,  declaring  the  discoveries  he 
had  made,  the  changes  which  his  views  had  undergone,  and  the 
sentiments  he  then  entertained.  It  was  the  doctrine  of  Elias 
Hicks  which  his  party  considered  sound  and  edifying,  and  which 
the  other  part  of  the  society  pronounced  to  be  unsound  and  spu- 
rious. The  evidence  of  their  own  witnesses  must  satisfy  any 
man,  that  no  other  doctrine  but  Hicks's  could  have  been  the 
subject  of  controversy.  They  do  not  pretend  that  the  "  Ortho- 
dox" hold  any  doctrines  which  are  unsound  or  spurious,  or  which 
they,  the  "  Hicksite"  party,  have  ever  pronounced  to  be  so. 
The  difference  must  therefore  be  respecting  their  own  doctrines; 
the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks.  Our  object  then,  is  to  discover 
what  these  doctrines  are,  about  which  the  difficulty  arose,  to 
show  that  they  are  not  the  doctrines  of  the  society  of  Friends, 
but  that  they  have  been  pronounced  by  it  to  be  unsound  and 
spurious.  It  is  not  necessary  that  we  should  put  our  finger  on 
the  precise  article  of  faith,  which  formed  the  point  of  dispute;  it 
is  enough  if  the  "  Hicksite"  party  hold  doctrines  difiering  from 


121 

the  doctrines  of  the  society  of  Friends,  if  this  fact  is  made  out, 
all  is  ascertained  which  is  requisite  for  the  decision  of  this  cause. 

The  whole  argument  of  the  opposite  counsel  turns  on  this  one 
position ;  they  endeavour  to  protect  and  shelter  themselves  under 
the  idea  that  their  doctrines  cannot  be  tested  and  shown  to  be 
contrary  to  those  of  ancient  Friends,  because,  as  they  allege,  the 
society  have  no  creed  or  written  articles  of  faith ;  this  is  their 
whole  dependence,  they  place  themselves  upon  this  ground,  and 
if  they  cannot  maintain  themselves  here,  they  have  no  ground 
whatever  to  stand  upon.  But  before  they  took  this  position, 
they  ought  first  to  have  satisfied  the  court,  that  the  religious 
doctrines  of  a  society  cannot  be  arrived  at,  unless  they  have 
certain  written  articles  of  faith  publicly  known  and  subscribed. 
1  have  never  before  heard  any  such  principle  contended  for.  I 
have  never  understood  that  if  you  come  into  court  to  ascertain 
the  principles  of  a  sect  or  party,  or  any  other  fact,  that  you 
must  of  necessity  show  written  proof  If  there  were  no  written 
standard  at  all,  yet  if  we  could  show  by  witnesses  that  they  have 
a  public  approved  minister  or  teacher,  who  is  communicating  to 
them  doctrines  destructive  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
christian  religion,  do  we  not  then  show  fully  that  the  congrega- 
tion are  tinctured  with  his  principles  ?  And  if  they  remain  with 
him,  attend  upon  his  ministry,  and  officially  declare  their  ap- 
probation of  him,  are  they  not  to  be  considered  as  holding  his 
doctrines  ?  Is  it  necessary  in  order  to  enable  men  to  join  in  the 
worship  of  their  Creator,  that  they  should  have  a  written  creed  J 
If  they  unite  in  the  great  fundamental  doctrines  of  our  holy 
religion,  it  is  sufficient,  whether  they  have  a  creed  or  not.  It  is 
usual  I  admit,  to  have  them  ;  but  is  it  essential  1  May  not  their 
rights  be  as  well  protected  without  as  with  it  1  The  question  is 
not  whether  the  society  has  a  creed,  but  whether  they  have 
certain  known  and  fundamental  doctrines  which  they  profess  to 
hold  as  essential,  as  fundamental.  We  are  not  going  to  pry  into 
the  secrets  of  men  hearts  to  enquire  there  what  their  belief  is ; 
our  object  is  to  ascertain  from  their  own  acts,  and  from 
their  own  declarations,  what  their  doctrines  are.  If  we  succeed 
in  this,  and  show  that  those  doctrines  are  different  from  the  faith 
of  the  primitive  Friends,  we  effect  our  object. 

What  is  the  Bible  but  a  written  creed  1  Is  it  not  the  creed  of 

Q 


122 

every  orthodox  christian,  and  if  he  hold  doctrines  different  from 
those  contained  in  that  book,  is  there  not  a  standard  by  which  he 
may  be  tried  ?  If  then  we  try  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks,  i)y 
this  standard,  can  we  find  a  better  ?  The  society  of  Friends  have 
again  and  again,  declared  their  willingness  that  all  their  doc- 
trines should  be  tried  by  the  scriptures,  and  that  whatsoever 
they  did  or  said,  which  was  contrary  thereto,  should  be  condemn- 
ed as  a  delusion.  But  when  we  attempt  to  apply  this  test  to 
Elias  Hicks,  w^e  find  that'he  is  unwilling  to  abide  by  it.  He  tells 
us  expressly,  "  I  am  not  wilUng  that  my  doctrines  should  be  tried 
by  the  scriptures,  or  the  writings  of  ancient  Friends."  See  vol.  I. 
Ev.  p.  215.  He  thought  he  knew  more  than  all  the  apostles,  and 
appears  to  have  had  a  better  opinion  of  himself,  than  of  all  the 
saints  in  the  calender.  Reason,  he  says,  is  better  than  revelation, 
and  revelation  good  for  nothings  unless  supported  by  reason. 

He  disclaims  the  revelation  of  the  holy  gospel,  as  a  standard 
to  be  tried  by.  He  may  disclaim,  but  it  will  be  in  vain.  The 
society  which  he  founded  may  disclaim,  but  it  is  for  this  court 
to  say,  whether  they  have  not  widely  departed  from  the  doctrines 
and  principles  of  the  religious  society  of  Friends,  and  are  no  lon- 
ger to  be  considered  as  a  part  of  its  communion. 

But  we  have  other  standards.  Is  not  the  teaching  of  the  ap- 
proved ministers  of  the  "  Hicksite"  party  a  test  of  the  doctrines 
they  hold  ?  Do  we  not  judge  men  by  the  company  they  keep  1 
and  may  we  not  judge  a  congregation  by  the  teachers  they  lis- 
ten to,  and  w  ilh  whom  they  declare  themselves  in  perfect  union  1 
Would  any  congregation  entertain  among  them,  a  minister  of  re- 
ligion who  preached  sentiments  adverse  to  those  which  they  held 
sacred  ?  Would  they  declare  their  union  with,  and  approbation  of 
his  ministry,  unless  they  held  the  same  religious  opinions  which 
he  delivered  weekly,  or  daily,  in  their  hearing  ?  The  counsel 
seem  to  think  that  in  the  society  of  Friends,  an  individual  may 
preach  any  doctrine  he  pleases  ;  that  he  may  preach  universal- 
ism,  or  unitarianism  ;  or  if  he  prefer  it,  he  may  preach  trinitarian 
doctrine ;  he  may  select  his  own  doctrine,  and  preach  what  he 
pleases.  This  is  what  the  opposite  party  contend  for  ;  but  it  is 
impossible  that  any  society  should  exist  upon  such  principles : 
there  never  can  be  a  religious  society  where  the  members  do 
not  unite  in  faith,  as  to  their  great  fundamental  principles.    We 


123 

want  no  better  evidence  of  the  truth  of  this,  than  the  sad  state 
of  facts  now  before  the  court.  Men  cannot  unite  in  worship 
unless  they  agree  in  faith.  I  mean  as  to  the  leading  and  essential 
doctrines  of  religion.  This  case  proves  it.  What  has  been  the 
consequence  of  a  contrary  state  of  things  ?  and  what  will  ever  be 
the  consequence  of  it  ?  One  minister  holds  forth  one  doctrine, 
and  another  minister  a  contrary  doctrine.  Opposition  sermons 
are  preached,  one  denying,  and  another  advocating  the  doctrines 
of  the  atonement  and  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  When  the  cir- 
cumstances took  place  in  the  meetings  in  Philadelphia,  of  which 
the  "  Hicksite"  party  complain  as  an  interruption  of  Elias  Hicks 
and  other  of  their  ministers  ;  what  occasioned  it  1  It  was  because 
they  had  avowed  and  preached  Unitarian  doctrines.  The  elders 
felt  it  their  duty  to  rise  and  declare  that  these  were  not  the  doc- 
trines of  the  society,  and  to  state  to  the  audience  what  the  prin- 
ciples of  Friends  on  those  points  of  faith  were.  Let  any  man 
seriously  put  the  question  to  himself,  whether  he  would  be  wil- 
ing to  belong  to  such  a  society,  where  he  must  be  compelled  to 
hear  doctrines,  which  he  holds  most  sacred,  and  which  he  be- 
lieves essential  to  his  salvation,  publicly  denied  and  reprobated. 
If  your  honors  please,  such  a  state  of  things  is  calculated  to  bring 
religion  itself  into  disgrace.  We  are  told  by  the  opposite  party, 
that  it  matters  not  what  doctrines  a  man  holds,  or  what  doc- 
trines he  preaches  in  our  meetings,  or  whether  he  holds  no  doc- 
trines at  all,  if  his  moral  conduct  is  good,  and  he  professes  to  act 
under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit.  But  how  are  we  to  try  wheth- 
er he  be  under  the  influence  of  a  true,  or  of  a  false  spirit  ?  Is  his 
appealing  to  reason  to  satisfy  us  ?  We  all  know  that  it  is  deceit- 
ful. How  often  does  it  mislead !  Many  who  have  been  induced 
by  it  to  imagine  themselves  in  the  right  way,  have  found  in  the 
end  that  they  were  in  the  wrong.  Yet  there  is  a  standard  to 
which  we  may  safely  appeal  and  by  which  we  may  try  doctrines, 
and  this  standard  is  the  Bible.  But  this  will  not  do  for  Mr. 
Hicks :  other  societies  may  have  standards  if  they  choose,  but 
he,  and  those  attached  to  him,  and  his  doctrines,  will  have  none. 
But  I  contend  that  where  a  minister  publicly  communicates 
to  his  congregation  or  meetings,  certain  rehgious  doctrines,  and  the 
society  to  which  he  belongs  gives  him  a  certificate  that  he  is  in 
full  unison  with  them,  at  the  very  time  that  he  is  preaching  those 


124 

doctrines,  and  with  a  full  knowledge  of  them,  that  society  is  ac- 
countable for  his  doctrines  ;  the  principles  he  advocates  must  be 
considered  theirs,  must  attach  to  them,  and  they  be  held  re- 
sponsible for  them.  The  society  of  which  Elias  Hicks  was  a 
member,  the  society  whicli  he  founded,  acted  thus  towards  him. 
After  the  separation,  after  all  the  controversy  respecting  his 
doctrines,  and  after  the  schism  which  those  doctrines  had  occa- 
sioned, in  the  year  1828,  when  he  attended  their  yearly  meet- 
ing at  Green  street  in  Philadelphia,  they  gave  him  a  certificate 
declaring  their  full  unity  with  him  and  his  services,  thereby  iden- 
tifying themselves  with  him  and  his  doctrines.  I  refer  the  court 
for  proof  of  this,  to  the  testimony  of  Thomas  Willis,  vol.  I.  Ev. 
p.  112,  113,  and  to  two  of  the  witnesses  of  the  "  Hicksite"  party, 
viz.  Abraham  Lower,  vol.  I.  Ev.  p.  468,  and  Halliday  Jackson, 
vol.  II.  Ev.  p.  167.  From  this  evidence  it  is  apparent  that  he 
was  in  full  union  with  this  new  yearly  meeting,  up  to  the  time 
of  his  decease,  and  that  the}^  officially  declared  their  approba- 
tion of  him. 

The  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  seem  to  have  taken  very 
much  the  ground  of  Hicks  himself;  they  disclaim  all  standards, 
every  thing  by  which  their  real  opinions  on  religious  doctrines 
may  be  tested.  If  we  want  to  try  them  by  the  scriptures,  they 
reject  them ;  if  by  the  writings  of  the  early  Friends,  they  dis- 
claim them  also.  Nothing  will  answer  for  them  but  a  written 
creed ;  this  they  say  we  have  not,  and  therefore  it  is  impossible 
for  us  to  prove  that  their  doctrines  are  not  the  doctrines  of  the 
society  of  Friends.  But  this  is  a  very  strange  and  irrational 
idea.  Does  not  history  give  us  the  religious  opinions  of  many 
religious  societies,  whose  creeds,  if  they  had  any,  we  have  never 
seen  1  Are  not  the  different  denominations  of  religious  professors 
readily  distinguished  from  each  other,  by  persons  who  have  never 
seen  their  respective  creeds  ?  What  has  produced  the  various 
denominations  of  professors?  Has  it  not  been  a  difference  of 
opinion  as  respects  some  points  of  doctrine  1  And  are  the  society 
of  Friends  alone  an  exception  to  this  ?  I  should  like  to  hear  the 
answer  of  the  gentlemen  to  this  enquiry.  Why  did  Fox,  Bar- 
clay and  Penn,  leave  the  established  church  of  England,  if  not 
on  account  of  a  difference  of  opinion  on  some  points  of  faith  ? 
This  was  one  ground  of  their  separation,  though  they  had  their 


125 

peculiar  testimonies  on  other  points  beside.  It  is  almost  univer- 
sally the  case,  that  where  a  separation  takes  place  in  a  religious 
society,  it  arises  from  a  difference  in  doctrine.  I  could  wish  that 
the  present  schism,  which  has  given  rise  to  this  cause,  had  been 
occasioned  by  different  views  of  the  discipline  only.  If  there  was 
no  other  ground  of  difTerence,  I  might  hope  that  the  wall  of  sepa- 
ration would  eventually  be  broken  down,  and  that  the  parties 
would  again  unite.  But  if  they  are  divided  by  adverse  views 
respecting  essential  doctrines  of  the  christian  religion,  there  is  a 
gulph  between  them  as  impassable  as  that  between  the  rich 
man  and  Lazarus.  Here  is  their  misfortune ;  this  is  the  rock  on 
which  they  have  split.  Neither  party  can  expect  the  other  to 
surrender  the  doctrines  they  hold,  and  they  must  therefore  endure 
all  the  evils  which  result  from  this  painful  state  of  things. 

I  think  the  gentlemen  spoke  without  book,  when  they  told  you 
that  the  society  of  Friends  had  no  doctrines  which  can  be  prov- 
ed. I  think  it  can  be  shown,  that  they  have  doctrines  which  are 
essential  and  fundamental,  even  from  the  booK  of  Discipline  by 
which  they  profess  to  be  governed.  As  I  said  before,  we  have 
many  standards,  and  I  think  we  may  find  such  standards  in  the 
book  of  Discipline,  in  their  Catechism  and  Confession  of  Faith, 
in  those  works  which  have  been  approved  and  published  by  the 
society  for  the  purpose  of  setting  forth  their  principles,  and  also 
in  the  declarations  of  faith  sanctioned  and  issued  by  the  so- 
ciety. If  these  cannot  be  considered  as  sutiicient  evidence 
of  their  doc trine.s,  I  know  not  what  can.  The  introduction  to 
the  book  of  Discipline,  sets  forth  the  object  for  which  it  was  in- 
stituted ;  declaring  that  they  "  have  been  engaged  to  meet  to- 
gether for  the  worship  of  God  in  spirit,  according  to  the  direction 
of  the  holy  lawgiver ;  as  also  for  the  exercise  of  a  tender  care 
over  each  other,  that  all  may  be  preserved  in  unity  of  faith  and 
practice,"  &c.  How  is  it  possible,  I  would  ask,  that  the  mem- 
bers of  this  society  should  be  preserved  in  unity  of  faith,  if  the 
society  has  no  faith,  no  doctrines  that  can  be  proved,  or  if,  as  the 
gentlemen  say,  every  member  is  to  hold  what  religious  opinions 
he  pleases  ?  I  will  now  refer  the  court  to  page  23  of  the  book 
of  Discipline,  where  we  find  the  following:  "  If  any  in  member- 
ship with  us  shall  blaspheme,  or  speak  profanely  of  Almighty 
God,  Christ  Jesus,  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  or  she  ought  early  to  be 


12G 

tenderly  treated  with  for  their  instruction,  and  the  convincement 
of  their  understanding,  that  they  may  experience  repentance  and 
forgiveness;  but  should  any,  notwithstanding  this  brotherly  la- 
bour, persist  in  their  error,  or  deny  the  divinity  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  the  immediate  revelation  of  the  holy  Spirit, 
or  the  authenticity  of  the  holy  Scriptures,  as  it  is  manifest  they 
are  not  one  in  faith  with  us,  the  monthly  meeting  where  the 
party  belongs,  having  extended  due  care  for  the  help  and  benefit 
of  the  individual,  without  effect,  ought  to  declare  the  same,  and 
issue  their  testimony  accordingly." 

Now  does  not  the  book  of  Discipline,  in  these  passages,  clearly 
require  that  the  members  should  be  in  unity  of  faith  ?  It  is  the 
very  language  used.  It  declares  respecting  those  who  deny  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  or  the  authenticity  of  the  holy  scriptures,  that 
it  is  manifest  they  are  not  one  in  faith  with  the  societ}^  and 
therefore  they  ought  to  be  dealt  with,  and  if  not  reclaimed,  they 
should  be  disowned.  Here  is  a  full  recognition  of  the  belief  of 
the  society  in  the  divinity  of  our  Saviour,  and  in  the  authenticity 
of  the  holy  scriptures — that  these  are  fundamental  doctrines — 
and  that  those  who  persist  in  a  denial  of  them,  are  to  be  dis- 
owned. The  gentleman  who  preceded  me  has  told  us,  that  all 
that  is  to  be  found  in  this  little  book  may  be  taken  as  true.  We 
have  enough  here  then  of  the  doctrines  of  the  society  of  Friends, 
to  show  what  (hey  hold,  and  have  ever  held  to  be  fundamental. 
We  do  not  contend  that  those  who  unite  ibr  the  purpose  of  so- 
cial worship,  must  agree  in  all  matters  of  religious  opinion,  but 
we  do  hold  that  they  must  unite  in  regard  to  all  cardinal  princi- 
ples— the  fundamental  doctrines  and  great  landmarks  of  the 
christian  religion.  If  they  differ  in  these,  it  will  disunite  and 
drive  them  to  different  places  of  worship. 

In  page  12  of  the  same  book,  I  find  the  following  language: 
"  This  meeting  doth  earnestly  exhort  all  parents,  heads  of  fami- 
lies, and  guardians  of  minors, that  they  prevent  as  much  as  in  them 
Hes,  their  children,  and  others  under  their  care  and  tuition,  from 
hearing  or  reading  books  and  papers  tending  to  prejudice  the 
profession  of  the  christian  religion — to  create  the  hast  doubt  con- 
cerning the  authenticity  of  the  holy  scriptures,  or  of  those  saving 
truths  declared  in  them,  lest  their  infant  and  feeble  minds  should 
be  poisoned  thereby,  and  a  foundation  laid  for   the   greatest 


127 

evils."  And  again  in  page  100,  "  We  tenderly  and  earnestly  ad- 
vise and  exhort  all  parents  and  heads  of  families,  that  they  en- 
deavour to  instruct  their  children  and  families  in  the  doctrines 
and  precepts  of  the  christian  religion,  as  contained  in  the  scrip- 
tures; and  that  they  excite  them  to  the  diligent  reading  of 
those  excellent  v^^ritings,  which  plainly  set  forth  the  miraculous 
conception,  birth,  holy  life,  w^onderful  works,  blessed  example, 
meritorious  death,  glorious  resurrection,  ascension  and  mediation 
of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ ;  and  to  educate  their 
children  in  the  belief  of  these  important  truths,  as  well  as  in  the 
belief  of  the  inward  manifestation  and  operation  of  the  holy 
Spirit  on  their  own  minds,  that  they  may  reap  the  benefit  and 
advantage  thereof,  for  their  own  peace  and  everlasting  happi- 
ness; which  is  infinitely  preferable  to  all  other  considerations." 
These  passages  not  only  show  what  great  importance  the  so- 
ciety of  Friends  attach  to  the  belief  of  these  doctrines,  but  they 
evince  that  they  considered  them  as  fundamental,  as  all-impor- 
tant to  their  members,  and  that  whatever  tended  to  create  the 
least  doubt  concerning  them,  was  laying  the  foundation  for  the 
greatest  of  evils.  We  have  here,  I  think,  from  the  book  of  Dis- 
cipline itself,  a  full  and  most  comprehensive  creed — an  acknow- 
ledgment of  all  the  essential  articles  of  the  christian  faith — and 
incorporated  too  in  the  code  of  laws  agreed  upon  by  the  yearly 
meeting  itself,  for  the  government  of  its  subordinate  meetings  and 
its  members.  But  I  will  refer  the  court  to  another  passage  in 
page  95  of  the  same  book.  It  appears  to  me  that  this  religious 
society  have  taken  uncommon  pains  to  preserve  their  members 
in  the  unity  of  faith.  There  is  no  religious  body  with  which  I 
am  acquainted,  whose  discipline  has  so  carefully  guarded  against 
the  introduction  of  unsound  doctrines.  They  have  adopted  one 
method  different  from  all  other  denominations,  and  which  if  car- 
ried into  effect,  must  produce  unity  in  religious  opinion.  They 
require  that  the  quarterly  meetings  should  answer  certain  que- 
ries, at  stated  periods,  in  order  that  the  yearly  meeting  may  be 
informed  what  is  the  state  of  every  quarter  under  its  charge. 
One  of  these  queries  addressed  to  the  select  meetings  is  in  these 
words.  "  Second  query.  Are  ministers  sound  in  word  and  doc- 
trine ?"  Can  your  honours  point  me  to  such  a  provision  as  this 
in   the  discipline  of  any  other  religious  society  ?     Has  any  other 


128 

denomination  of  christians  ever  taken  so  much  pains  to  preserve 
its  ministers  sound  in  word  and  doctrine,  and  to  prevent  its 
members  from  being  contaminated  by  the  preaching  of  unsound 
principles  ?  I  know  of  none.  Now  is  it  not  most  strange  that 
this  society  should  be  at  all  this  pains  and  care — that  they 
should  so  scrupulously  guard  against  the  inroads  of  antichristian 
doctrines  or  principles  adverse  to  their  faith — that  they  should 
call  upon  their  quarterly  meetings  to  answer  whether  their  min- 
isters are  sound  in  faith,  and  yet,  as  the  opposite  counsel  allege, 
have  no  ascertained  faith — no  doctrines  by  w  hich  they  can  be 
tested  1  How  are  they  to  answer  1  Suppose  they  answer  that 
thev  are  unitarians.  According  to  the  gentleman's  ideas  this 
would  not  make  them  unsound  in  doctrine,  nor  would  the 
avowal  of  any  other  belief.  It  is  in  vain  for  him  to  say  that  the 
society  of  Friends  have  no  articles  of  faith — no  written  creed — 
they  have  well-defined  and  settled  doctrines,  doctrines  that  are 
fundamental,  and  for  the  disbelief  of  which,  their  members  may 
be  disowned.  We  come  here  to  try  the  *'  Hicksite"  party  by 
these  doctrines,  the  acknowledged  doctrines  of  the  primitive 
Friends.  If  that  party  hold  these  doctrines,  we  have  no  ground 
of  complaint  against  them.  But  if  they  do  not,  if  they  have  se- 
parated on  the  ground  of  a  difference  respecting  these  doctrines, 
then  they  must  abide  by  the  consequences. 

But  I  go  further.  In  a  Treatise  on  Church  Government  writ- 
ten by  Robert  Barclay,  one  of  the  most  eminent  of  the  early 
Friends,  when  describing  the  system  of  church  government  in 
the  society  of  which  he  was  one  of  the  founders,  we  find  him  lay- 
ing down  principles  on  the  subject  of  unity  in  doctrines  about 
which  there  can  be  no  mistake.  In  page  53  of  this  work,  he 
says,  "  As  to  the  first,  whether  the  church  of  Christ  hath  power 
in  any  cases  that  are  matters  of  conscience,  to  give  a  positive 
sentence  and  decision  which  may  be  obligatory  upon  believers, 
I  answer  affirmatively,  she  hath  ;  and  shall  prove  it  from  divers 
instances  both  from  scripture  and  reason.  For  first,  all  princi- 
ples and  articles  of  faith  which  are  held  doctrinally  are,  in  re- 
spect to  those  that  believe  them,  matters  of  conscience.  We  know 
the  Papists  do,  out  of  conscience,  (such  as  are  zealous  among 
them)  adore,  worship  and  pray  to  angels,  saints  and  images,  yea, 
and  to  the  euchanst,  as  judging  it  to  be  really  Christ  Jesus,  and 


129 

so   do  others   place  conscience  in  things    that    are   absolutely 
wrong.     Now  I  say,  we  being  gathered  into  the  belief  of  certain 
principles  and  doctrines,   without  any  constraint  or  worldly  re- 
spect, but  by  the  mere  force  of  truth  upon  our  understandings, 
and  its  power  and  influence  upon   our  hearts ;  these  principles 
and   doctrines,  and  the  practices  necessarily   depending  upon 
them  are,  as  it  were,  the  terms  that  have  drawn  us  together,  and 
the  bond  by  which  we  became  centred  into  one  body  and  fel- 
lowship, and  distinguished  from  others.     Now  if  any  one  or  more, 
so  engaged  with  us,  should  arise  to  teach  any  other  doctrine  or 
doctrines,  contrary  to  those  which  were  the  ground  of  our  being 
one  ;  who  can  deny  but  the  body  hath  power  in  such  a  case  to 
declare,  This  is  not  according  to  the  truth  we  profess;  and  there- 
fore we  pronounce  such  and  such  doctrines  to  be  wrong,  with 
which  we  cannot  have  unity,  nor  yet  any  more  spiritual  fellow- 
ship with  those  that  hold  them.     And  so  such  cut  themselves  off 
from  being  members,  by  dissolving  the  very  bond  by  which  they 
were  linked  to  the  body.     Now  this  cannot  be  accounted  tyranny 
and  oppression,  no  more  than  in  a  civil  society,  if  one  of  the  so- 
ciety should  contradict  one  or  more  of  the  fundamental  articles 
upon  which  the  society  was  contracted,  it  cannot  be  reckoned  a 
breach  or  iniquity  in  the  whole  society  to  declare  that  such  con- 
tradictors have  done  wrong,  and  forfeited  their  right  in  that  so- 
ciety ;  in  case  by  the  original  constitution,  the  nature  of  the  con- 
tradiction implies  such  a  forfeiture,  as  usually  it  is,  and  will  no 
doubt  hold  in  religious  matters.     As  if  a  body  be  gathered  into 
one  fellowship,  by  the  belief  of  certain  principles,  he  that  comes 
to  believe  otherwise,  naturally  scattereth  himself;  for  that  the 
cause  that  gathered  him,  is  taken  away ;  and  so  those  that 
abide  constant  in  declaring  the  thing  to  be  so  as  it  is,  and  in  look- 
ing upon  him,  and  witnessing  of  him,  to  others,  (if  need  be)  to 
be  such  as  he  has  made  himself,  do  him  no  injury.     I  shall  make 
the  supposition  in  the  general,  and  let  every  people  make  the  ap- 
plication to  themselves,  abstracting  from  us ;  and  then  let  con- 
science and  reason  in  every  impartial  reader  declare,  whether  or 
not  it  doth  not  hold.     Suppose  a  people  really  gathered  into  the 
belief  of  the  true  and  certain  principles  of  the  gospel,  if  any  of 
these  people  shall  arise  and  contradict  any  of  these  fundamental 
truths,  whether  have  not  such  as  stand,  good  right  to  cast  out 

R 


130 

such  an  one  from  among  them,  and  to  pronounce  positively,  This 
is  contrarj'^  to  the  truth  we  profess  and  own,  and  therefore  ought 
to  be  rejected  and  not  received,  nor  yet  he  that  asserts  it,  as  one 
of  us.  And  is  not  this  obhgatory  upon  all  the  members,  seeing 
all  are  concerned  in  the  like  care  as  to  themselves,  to  hold  the 
right  and  shut  out  the  wrong.  1  cannot  tell  if  any  man  of  reason 
can  well  deny  this ;  however  1  shall  prove  it  next  from  the  testi- 
mony of  the  scripture."  Barclay's  Anarchy  of  the  Ranters,  pp. 
53  to  56. 

Here  are  the  sentiments  of  one  of  the  primitive  Friends,  when 
speaking  of  the  system  of  government  adopted  by  the  society. 
This  book  has  been  recognized  as  a  standard  work  by  the  society 
everywhere.  It  has  been  published  and  republished  by  them, 
by  the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia,  and  looked  up  to,  as  de- 
scribing the  government  to  which  they  must  submit,  and  by 
which  they  must  be  bound.  In  this  work  it  is  clearly  laid  down, 
that  they  have  certain  fundamental  doctrines,  and  that  if  a 
man  preach  other  doctrines  contrary  to,  or  incompatible  with 
those  fundamental  principles,  they  are  bound  to  drive  him  from 
them,  to  disown  him  and  his  doctrines.  They  are  bound  by  their 
duty  to  God,  and  by  their  duty  to  their  fellow  men,  to  do  so. 
What !  are  they  to  hear  one  of  their  members  openly  deny  the 
divinity  and  atonement  of  their  Saviour,  when  they  themselves 
hold  those  doctrines  to  be  among  the  bonds,  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples which  unite  them  together,  and  yet  to  take  no  measures 
to  disown  such  members  or  to  prevent  the  preaching  of  such 
doctrines !  The  gentleman  must  show  not  only  that  they  have 
no  fundamental  doctrines,  but  that  they  have  no  church  gov- 
ernment— no  control  over  their  members — no  standard  to  ascer- 
tain whether  they  were  right  or  wrong  in  the  doctrines  they 
promulgate.  Barclay  clearly  points  out  the  course  which  the 
"  Hicksite"  party  ought  to  have  taken.  They  came  into  the 
society  on  the  ground  of  unity  of  faith,  professing  certain  doc- 
■  trines,  and  if  they  became  convinced  that  these  doctrines  were 
■wrong,  or  that  other  principles  were  better,  they  ought  to  hare 
left  the  society  peaceably  and  quietly — to  have  acknowledged 
that  they  had  departed  from  the  terms  of  the  contract,  broken 
the  bond  which  united  them  to  it.  Here  is  the  principle  upon 
which  they  ought  to  have  withdrawn.     In  the  language  of  Bar- 


131 

clay  "  they  scattered  themselves"  from  the  society,  and  they 
ought  to  have  left  it.     This  evidently  was  their  first  intention  ; 
but  when  told  that  by  thus  withdrawing  they  would  lose  the 
property  of  the  society,  they  take  another  ground.    And  notwith- 
standing all  they  have  said  and  done  to  promote  Elias  Hicks  and 
his  principles — notwithstanding  the  whole  burden  of  their  com- 
plaint is  made  up  of  the  opposition  to  him  and  his  doctrines,  they 
now  wish  to  deny  their  leader  as  they  have  denied  their  Saviour. 
In  page  57  of  the  same  book,  Barclay  says;  "If  the  apostles 
of  Christ  of  old,  and  the  preachers  of  the  everlasting  Gospel  in 
this  day,  had  told  all  people,  however  wrong  they  found  them  in 
their  faith  and  principles.  Our  charity  and  love  is  such,  we  dare 
not  judge  you,  nor  separate  from  you ;  but  let  us  all  live  in  love 
together,  and  every  one  enjoy  his  own  opinions,  and  all  will  be 
well ;  how  should  the  nations  have  been,  or  what  way  can  they 
now  be,  brought  to  truth   and   righteousness :  would   not  the 
devil  love  this  doctrine  well,  by  which  darkness  and  ignorance, 
error  and  confusion,  might  still  continue  in  the  earth  unreproved 
and  uncondemned."     And   again    in  the   next  page   the  same 
author  says,  "  Were  such  a  principle  to  be  received  or  believed, 
that  in  the  church  of  Christ,  no  man  should  be  separated  from, 
no  man  condemned  or  excluded  the  fellowship  and  communion 
of  the  body,  for  his  judgment  or  opinion  in  matters  of  faith,  then 
what  blasphemies  so  horrid,  what  heresies  so  damnable,  what 
doctrines  of  devils,  but  might  harbour  themselves  in  the  church  of 
Christ !     What  need  of  sound  doctrine,  if  no  doctrine  make  un- 
sound 1     What  need  for  convincing  and  exhorting  gainsayers,  if 
to  gainsay  be  no  crime  l      Where  should  the  unity  of  the  faith 
be  '.     Were  not  this  an  inlet  to  all  manner  of  abomination,  and 
to  make  void  the  whole  tendency  of  Christ's  and  his  apostles' 
doctrine,  and  render  the  gospel  of  none  effect ;  and  to  give  a 
liberty  to  the  unconstant  and  giddy  will  of  man,  to  innovate, 
alter,  and  overturn  it  at  his  pleasure  ?     So  that  from  all  that  is 
above  mentioned  we  do  safely  conclude,  that  where  a  people  are 
gathered  together  unto  the  belief  of  the  principles  and  doctrines 
of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  if  any  of  that  people  shall  go  from  their 
principles,  and  assert  things  false  and  contrary  to  what  they  have 
already  received,  such  as  stand  and  abide  firm  in  the  faith,  have 
power  by  the  spirit  of  God,  after  they  have  used  christian  en- 
deavours to  convince  and  reclaim  them,  upon  their  obstinacy,  to 


132 

separate  from  such,  and  to  exclude  them  from  their  spiritual 
fellowship  and  communion  :  for,  otherwise  if  this  be  denied, 
farewell  to  all  Christianity,  or  to  the  maintaining  of  any  sound 
doctrine  in  the  church  of  Christ."     Barclay,  &c.  pp.  57-59. 

Here  then  we  have  the  sentiments  of  Robert  Barclay,  one  of 
the  founders  of  the  society,  as  to  the  consequences  which  would 
result  from  the  principle  which  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side 
contend  for,  permitting  every  man  in  the  society  to  hold  what  re- 
ligious opinions  he  pleases,  without  accountability  and  without 
restraint.  He  shows  in  strong  terms  the  evils  and  confusion  which 
would  arise  from  it,  and  the  impossibility  of  maintaining  any 
christian  society  where  such  a  principle  is  tolerated.  We  find 
then,  that  the  society  has  certain  fundamental  doctrines,  which 
are  the  terms  of  their  communion,  and  the  bond  which  binds 
them  together  ;  that  they  have  a  system  of  church  government ; 
that  this  government  extends  to  the  preservation  of  their  members 
in  the  belief  of  these  principles,  and  that  a  denial  or  disbelief  of 
them  forfeits  their  membership.  If  their  ministers  or  members 
undertake  to  promulgate  false  doctrines,  they  may,  nay,  it  is  their 
duty,  to  exclude  them  from  the  society,  if  they  persist  in  it.  In 
conformity  with  the  principles  laid  down  by  Barclay,  as  well  as 
with  its  discipline,  the  society  has  been  in  the  constant  practice, 
from  the  earliest  periods  of  its  history,  of  disowning  those  who 
held  and  promulgated  unsound  doctrines.  For  proof  of  this,  I 
refer  to  the  evidence  of  Samuel  Bettle,  vol.  I.  Ev.  p.  60,  Wil- 
liam Jackson,  lb,  p.  99.  Thomas  Willis,  lb.  p,  108.  Samuel 
Parsons,  lb.  p,  170,  171.  Thomas  Evans,  lb.  p.  305,  306. 
We  were  told  by  the  gentleman  yesterday,  that  if  Hicks  held 
these  doctrines,  he  ought  to  have  been  dealt  with  by  the  monthly 
meeting  of  Jericho,  that  they  might  advise  him,  but  if  he  did  not 
choose  to  take  their  advice  (as  I  understood  him)  they  could 
deal  no  further  with  him,  Barclay  does  not  hold  such  language 
as  this,  but  directly  the  contrary;  and  we  have  already  shown 
that  the  monthly  meeting  of  Jericho,  could  not,  and  would  not, 
deal  with  him,  because  they  had  embraced  his  doctrines  and  held 
them  to  be  sound.  It  is  true  that  the  society  of  Friends  have 
been  cautious  in  the  selection  of  terms  when  declaring  their  belief 
on  the  mysterious  doctrines  of  the  christian  religion,  and  have 
rejected  some  of  the  school  terms  which  are  in  common  use,  pre- 


133 

ferring  to  express  themselves  in  the  language  of  the  holy  scrip- 
tures, as  being  most  proper  and  becoming.  On  this  ground  it  was 
that  they  objected  to  the  creeds  and  forms  of  faith  which  were 
commonly  used  when  the  society  took  its  rise,  and  not  because 
they  did  not  hold  the  doctrines  intended  to  be  expressed  in  them. 
The  society  was  frequently  called  on  to  come  forward  and  make 
known  the  religious  principles  which  they  held  ;  they  did  so,  and 
declared  their  belief  in  terms  which  cannot  be  mistaken.  And 
now,  to  tell  us  that  there  is  no  test  by  which  they  can  determine 
wJiethcr  a  preacher  maintains  sound  doctrine  or  unsound,  is  con- 
trary to  the  express  letter  of  their  discipline,  to  all  the  sentiments 
of  the  society,  and  to  these  acknowledged  declarations  of  their 
doctrines  which  have  existed,  and  been  universally  received 
among  them,  for  a  century  and  a  half 

Wednesday,  afternoon — 3.  P.  M.  My  present  object  is  to 
show  that  the  unfortunate  difference  which  exists  between  the 
parties  now  before  the  court,  respects  doctrines.  To  show  what 
the  doctrines  of  the  ancient  Friends,  and  which  the  society  still 
holds  are,  and  also  the  difference  which  exists  between  them  and 
the  doctrines  held  and  promulgated  by  Elias  Hicks  and  embraced 
by  his  adherents.  I  have  endeavoured  to  show  that  the  society 
of  Friends  hold  certain  doctrines  which  they  consider  fundamen- 
tal, and  for  the  disavowal  of  which  their  members  may  be  dis- 
owned and  put  out  of  their  community.  It  has  been  asserted  by 
the  gentleman  on  the  opposite  side,  that  this  society  as  a  body 
had  never  published  any  declaration  of  their  faith  to  the  world, 
except  it  was  in  the  express  language  of  scripture,  and  we  were 
challenged  to  produce  any  such  document  or  authority.  It  was 
admitted  by  the  gentleman,  at  the  time  the  challenge  was  given, 
that  if  we  could  produce  such  a  document,  written  in  human  lan- 
guage, to  use  his  phrase,  he  would  concede  that  it  was  a  creed, 
and  binding  on  the  members  of  the  society.  I  shall  now  under- 
take to  prove  that  the  society  of  Friends  have  done  this;  that 
they  have  issued  such  a  document,  and  if  I  do  so,  then  the  gen- 
tleman on  his  own  ground  stands  fully  committed.  I  understand 
him  to  assert  that  the  society  never  have  done  this,  except  in 
scripture  language;  that  there  is  no  document  which  we  can 
produce,  as  an  authentic  act,  authorized  by  them,  containing  a 
declaration  of  their  faith  in  human  language.     In  order  to  prove 


134 

that  publications  of  this  kind  have  been  made  under  the  sanction 
of  the  society,  as  a  community,  I  shall  refer  first  to  the  declara- 
tion of  faith,  contained  in  the  2nd  vol.  Sewel's  History,  p.  472,  et 
seq.  This  declaration  was  issued  in  1693,  in  order  to  set  forth 
before  the  world  what  the  doctrines  of  the  society  were,  if  I  am 
not  much  mistaken,  (his  document  will  furnish  a  complete  answer 
to  the  challenge  which  has  been  given  by  the  gentleman  on  the 
other  side.  It  was  published  under  the  sanction  of  the  society, 
and  approved  by  them.  It  is  not  written  in  scripture  language, 
but  in  human  language.  It  was  not  only  examined  and  approv- 
ed in  London,  by  the  meeting  there,  which  is  authorized  by  the 
discipline  to  make  such  publications,  but  it  has  been  adopted  by 
the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia,  and  sanctioned  and  approved 
by  it.  I  refer  to  the  testimony  ^f  Thomas  Evans,  vol.  I.  Ev.  pp. 
288,  297,  for  proof  of  this  fact.  In  this  declaration  we  find  the 
following  language,  viz.  "  We  sincerely  profess  faith  in  God  by 
his  only  begotten  son  Jesus  Christ,  as  being  ourlight  and  life,  our 
only  way  to  the  Father,  and  also  our  only  Mediator  and  Advocate 
with  the  Father.  That  God  created  all  things,  he  made  the 
worlds  by  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  he  being  that  powerful  and  liv- 
ing Word  of  God  by  whom  all  things  were  made ;  and  that  the 
Father,  the  Word  and  Holy  Spirit  are  one,  in  divine  being  insep- 
arable, one  true  living  and  eternal  God,  blessed  forever.  Yet 
that  this  Word  or  Son  of  God,  in  the  fulness  of  time  took  flesh, 
became  perfect  man,  according  to  the  flesh,  descended  and  came 
of  the  seed  of  Abraham  and  David,  but  was  miraculously  con- 
ceived by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  born  of  the  virgin  Mary.  And  also 
further  declared  powerfully  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  according  to 
the  spirit  of  santification,  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead. 
That  in  the  Word  or  Son  of  God  was  life,  and  the  same  life  was 
the  light  of  men  ;  and  that  he  was  the  true  light  which  enlightens 
every  man  coming  into  the  world ;  and  therefore  that  men  are 
to  beheve  in  the  light  that  they  may  become  the  children  of  the 
light.  Hereby  we  believe  in  Christ  the  Son  of  God  as  he  is  the 
light  and  life  within  us;  and  wherein  we  must  needs  have  sin- 
cere respect  and  honour  to,  and  belief  in  Christ,  as  in  bis  own 
unapproachable  and  incomprehensible  glory  and  fulness,  as  he  is 
the  Fountain  of  life  and  light,  and  Giver  thereof  unto  us ;  Christ 
as  in  himself,  and  as  in  us,  being  not  divided.     And  that  as  man 


135 

Christ  died  for  our  sins,  rose  again,  and  was  received  up  into 
glory  in  the  heavens  :  he  having,  in  his  dying  for  all,  been  that 
one  great  universal  offering  and  sacrifice,  for  peace,  atonement 
and  reconciliation  between  God  and  man ;  and  he  is  the  propi- 
tiation, not  for  our  sins  only,  but  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world. 
We  are  reconciled  by  his  death,  but  saved  by  his  life. 

"  That  Jesus  Christ,  who  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  the  throne 
of  the  Majesty  in  the  heavens,  yet  he  is  our  King,  High  Priest, 
and  Prophet  in  his  church,  the  Minister  of  the  sanctuary,  and  of 
the  true  tabernacle  which  the  Lord  pitched,  and  not  man.  He 
is  Intercessor  and  Advocate  with  the  Father  in  heaven,  and  there 
appearing  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us,  being  touched  with  the 
feeling  of  our  infirmities,  sufferings,  and  sorrows.  And  also  by 
his  spirit  in  our  hearts,  he  maketh  intercession  according  to  the 
will  of  God,  crying,  Abba,  Father.  For  any  whom  God  hath 
gifted  and  called,  sincerely  to  preach  faith  in  the  same  Christ 
both  as  within  us,  and  without  us,  cannot  be  to  preach  two 
Christs,  but  one  and  the  same  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  having  respect 
to  those  degrees  of  our  spiritual  knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus  in  us, 
and  to  his  own  unspeakable  fulness  and  glory  as  in  himself,  in 
his  own  entire  being,  wherein  Christ  himself,  and  the  least  mea- 
sure of  his  light,  or  life,  as  in  us,  or  in  mankind,  are  not  divided 
nor  separable,  no  more  than  the  sun  is  from  its  light.  And  as  he 
ascended  far  above  all  heavens  that  he  might  fill  all  things,  his 
fulness  cannot  be  comprehended  or  contained  in  any  finite  crea- 
ture, but  in  some  measure  known  and  experienced  in  us,  as  we 
are  capable  to  receive  the  same,  as  of  his  fulness  we  have  re- 
ceived grace  for  grace.  Christ  our  Mediator  received  the  Spirit 
not  by  measure,  but  in  fulness,  but  to  every  one  of  us  is  given 
grace,  according  to  the  measure  of  his  gift. 

"  That  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God  should  be  preached  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  being  one  in  pow- 
er, wisdom  and  goodness,  and  indivisible,  or  not  to  be  divided  in 
the  great  work  of  man's  salvation. 

"  We  sincerely  confess  and  believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  both  as  he 
is  true  God,  and  perfect  man,  and  that  he  is  the  author  of  our 
living  faith  in  the  power  and  goodness  of  God,  as  manifested  in 
his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  his  own  blessed  spirit,  or  divine  unc- 
tion, revealed  in  us,  whereby  we  inwardly  feel  and  taste  of  his 


136 

goodness,  life  and  virtue,  so  as  our  souls  live  and  prosper  by  and 
in  him  ;  and  the  inward  sense  of  this  divine  power  of  Christ,  and 
faith  in  the  same,  and  this  inward  experience,  is  absolutely  ne- 
cessary to  make  a  true,  sincere  and  perfect  christian  in  spirit 
and  life. 

"  That  divine  honour  and  worship  is  due  to  the  Son  of  God, 
and  that  he  is  in  true  faith  to  be  prayed  unto,  and  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  called  upon,  as  the  primitive  christians 
did,  because  of  the  glorious  union,  or  oneness  of  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  and  that  we  cannot  acceptably  offer  up  prayers  and 
praises  to  God,  nor  receive  a  gracious  answer  or  blessing  from 
God,  but  in  and  through  his  dear  Son,  Christ. 

"  That  Christ's  body  that  was  crucified  was  not  the  Godhead, 
yet  by  the  power  of  God  was  raised  from  the  dead,  and  that  the 
same  Christ  that  was  therein  crucified,  ascended  into  heaven, 
and  glory,  is  not  questioned  by  us.  His  flesh  saw  no  corruption, 
it  did  not  corrupt;  but  yet  doubtless,  his  body  was  changed  into 
a  more  glorious  and  heavenly  condition  than  it  was  in  when  sub- 
ject to  divers  sufferings  on  earth,  but  how  and  what  manner  of 
change  it  met  withal,  after  it  was  raised  from  the  dead,  so  as  to 
become  such  a  glorious  body,  as  it  is  declared  to  be,  is  too  won- 
derful for  mortals  to  conceive,  apprehend,  or  pry  into  ;  and  moi-e 
meet  for  angels  to  see.  The  scripture  is  silent  therein  as  to  the 
manner  thereof,  and  we  are  not  curious  to  enquire,  or  dispute  it ; 
nor  do  we  esteem  it  necessary  to  make  ourselves  wise  above  what 
is  written,  as  to  the  manner  or  condition  of  Christ's  glorious  body 
as  in  heaven,  no  more  than  to  inquire  how  Christ  appeared  in 
divers  manners  or  forms,  or  how  he  came  in  among  his  disciples 
the  doors  being  shut,  or  how  he  vanished  out  of  their  sight  after 
he  was  risen."     See  Sewel's  History,  p.  475.  vol.  K. 

Now,  may  it  please  the  court,  this  declaration  of  faith  has  ac- 
tually been  adopted  by  this  very  society,  and  by  the  yearly  meet- 
ing of  Philadelphia.  Is  there  not  here  a  full  and  explicit  decla- 
ration of  their  faith  ?  Is  it  not  a  creed  according  to  the  learned 
gentlemen's  own  understanding,  and  upon  their  own  terms  ?  Can 
a  religious  denomination  be  more  fully  committed,  than  the  soci- 
ety of  Friends  are  by  this  document  1  It  was  adopted  and  pub- 
lished by  that  very  society,  of  whom  the  opposite  party  now  tell 
us  that  they  have  no  faith,  no  fundamental  doctrines ;  and  it  was 


137 

adopted  too,  to  put  down  and  silence  tlie  charge  of  denying  the 
divinity  and  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  gentleman  will  not 
say  that  this  declaration  is  couched  in  scripture  language.  It  is 
in  human  language,  to  use  his  own  expression,  and  therefore,  ac- 
cording to  his  own  shewing,  it  is  a  creed,  sanctioned  and  adopt- 
ed by  the  society.  How  then  can  the  gentleman  tell  us  that 
they  have  no  creed.  We  have  here  a  full  and  explicit  answer 
to  the  challenge  he  has  given,  and  upon  his  own  ground  he  stands 
committed.  It  will  appear  from  an  examination  of  the  testimo- 
ny, that  this  declaration  of  faith  was  not  only  examined  and  ap- 
proved by  the  morning  meeting  in  London,  which  is  a  body  au- 
thorized to  inspect  and  approve  of  writings  declaratory  of  the 
religious  faith  of  the  society,  but  that  it  was  also  adoj)ted  and 
published  by  the  society  here.  It  stands  clothed  therefore  with 
all  the  authority  of  a  creed,  or  confession  of  faith,  which  any  re- 
ligious community  can  possibly  issue  to  the  world. 

I  will  refer  the  court  to  another  declaration  of  faith,  contained 
in  Sewel's  History,  vol.  II.  p.  483,  issued  on  behalf  of  the  society 
of  Friends,  and  presented  in  their  name  to  the  British  parliament, 
as  evidence  of  their  belief  in  Jesus  Christ.  This  declaration,  no 
more  than  the  former,  is  clothed  in  scripture  language  ;  it  is  in 
human  language ;  it  is  a  solemn  declaration  made  to  parliament 
for  the  express  purpose  of  satisfying  them  that  the  society  do 
believe  in  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour.  It  is  impossible  to  evade  it, 
without  imputing  to  the  society  dissimulation  and  insincerity  ; 
this  will  not  be  attempted ;  it  would  be  monstrous  to  suppose 
that  the  society  made  a  declaration  of  this  solemn  nature,  as 
evidence  of  their  belief,  and  yet  that  they  were  not  candid  and 
honest  when  they  made  it.  It  is  for  the  "  Hicksite"  party  to 
show  that  these  declarations  do  not  contain  the  faith  of  the  so- 
ciety ;  they  stand  recorded  in  its  history,  sanctioned  by  its  meet- 
ings, and  looked  up  to  by  the  members  as  the  articles  of  their 
belief.  The  opposite  counsel  referred  the  court  to  the  Journal 
of  George  Whitehead  for  the  history  of  another  declaration  of 
faith,  the  one  prepared  by  the  society,  and  inserted  in  the  tole- 
ration act.  It  is  in  these  words :  "  I  profess  faith  in  God  the  Fa- 
ther, and  in  Jesus  Christ  his  eternal  Son,  the  true  God,  and  in 
the  holy  Spirit,  one  God  blessed  forever ;  and  do  acknowledge 
the  holy  Scriptures  of  the  old  and  new  Testament,  to  be  given 


138 

by  divine  inspiration."  The  court  will  see  by  referring  to  tbe 
passage,  that  Whitehead  himself  considers  it  a  creed.  The  gen- 
tlemen on  the  other  side,  deny  that  the  society  have  any  creed ; 
Whitehead  on  the  contrary  considers  that  declaration  as  such, 
and  binding  upon  all  the  members  of  the  society.  We  have 
heard  much  said  about  the  objection  of  this  society  to  creeds ; 
but  that  objection  was  not  to  a  creed  or  declaration  of  faith 
simply,  nor  did  it  arise  from  any  unwillingness  to  put  down  in 
writing  the  fundamental  principles  of  their  belief,  their  objec- 
tion was  to  temporal  powers  prescribing  articles  of  faith,  and 
compelling  an  assent  to  them,  by  the  arm  of  the  secular  power. 
The  society  has  always  been  willing  to  abide  by  the  articles  of 
faith,  which  they  adopted  ;  they  never  wished  to  have  it  in  their 
power  to  say  one  thing  one  day,  and  another  thing  on  another 
day.  They  held  that  all  men  had  a  right  to  adopt  such  religious 
opinions  as  they  conscientiously  believed  to  be  proper,  and  that 
no  earthly  power  ought  to  control  them  in  it ;  but  they  also 
maintained  that  when  any  body  of  men  adopted  and  published 
their  belief,  they  must  stand  or  fall  by  it. 

It  is  strange  indeed,  that  after  all  the  declarations  of  faith 
made  by  the  society  of  Friends,  after  the  many  books  published 
by  them  in  order  to  show  their  real  principles,  it  should  now  be 
contended  that  they  have  no  standard  of  religious  doctrines,  that 
they  rely  solely  on  the  operation  of  the  Spirit,  and  that  the  Spirit 
dictated  one  thing  at  one  time,  and  another  thing  at  another 
time.  They  refused,  it  is  true,  to  admit  of  king,  parliament,  or 
any  earthly  power  to  prescribe  articles  of  faith  for  them,  but 
having  solemnly  adopted  and  declared  their  religious  principles, 
they  never  did  refuse  to  be  bound  by  them.  Here  then  are 
three  instances  in  which  the  gentleman  stands  defeated  on  his 
own  ground,  and  with  his  own  weapons.  Here  is  a  creed,  au- 
thoritative and  binding  on  the  members  of  the  society,  couched, 
not  in  scripture,  but  in  human  language,  adopted  and  published 
to  the  world  as  tests  of  their  religious  faith.  The  society,  as  I 
remarked  this  morning,  have  taken  great  pains  that  their  prin- 
ciples and  doctrines  might  not  be  misunderstood  by  the  world. 
From  their  peculiar  mode  of  worship,  suspicions  were  entertained 
by  some,  that  they  did  not  adopt  the  christian  faith.  To  meet 
these  groundless  suspicions,  they  have  repeatedly,  as  a  body, 


139 

authorized  publications  to  be  made  explanatory  of  their  belief, 
as  may  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  testimony  of  Samuel  Bettle, 
vol.  I.  Ev.  p.  59,  60.  The  witness  says,  "  For  these  doctrines, 
[viz.  the  doctrines  of  the  society  of  Friends]  witness  refers  to 
George  Fox's  letter  to  the  governor  of  Barbadoes,  contained  in 
his  journal,  to  a  declaration  presented  to  a  committee  of  the  Bri- 
tish parliament  in  1689,  a  declaration  presented  to  parliament 
in  1693,  to  Barclay's  Catechism  and  Confession  of  Faith,  and  to 
Barclay's  Apology ;  this  latter  work  was  originally  written  in 
the  Latin  language,  and  has  been  translated  into  different  lan- 
guages, and  largely  circulated,  for  the  very  purpose  of  making 
known  the  doctrines  of  the  society.  We  are  bound  by  the  doc- 
trines contained  in  this  work,  and  the  society  is  every  where 
identified  with  the  sentiments,  opinions,  and  doctrines,  laid  down 
in  this  work.  Witness  also  refers  to  "  Evans's  Exposition"  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  society  of  Friends,  as  containing  a  true  and  com- 
prehensive view  of  the  doctrines  of  the  society ;  also  Barclay's 
"  Anarchy  of  the  Ranters,"  a  work  on  church  government.  The 
witness  further  saith,  that  these  works  here  exhibited,  as  well 
as  all  those  mentioned  by  him,  are  regular  standard  works  in 
the  society  of  Friends,  and  have  been  acknowledged  and  pub- 
lished by  them  at  different  (imes  in  the  regular  way  of  publica- 
tion established  by  their  discipline.  These  doctrines  have  al- 
ways been  considered  as  fundamental,  and  promulgated  as  such 
by  their  approved  ministers.  They  were  so  reputed  when  the 
witness  first  had  knowledge  of  the  society,  and  still  continue  to 
be  so.  These  books  are  circulated  now  by  the  society,  as  con- 
taining its  doctrines.  A  departure  from,  or  disbelief  in  these 
doctrines,  is  always  considered  by  the  society  as  an  evidence  of 
unsoundness  in  the  faith." 

The  court  will  perceive  from  the  testimony  of  this  witness, 
that  these  works  have  been  published  from  time  to  time,  by  the 
society,  as  standard  works,  fully  explaining  their  doctrines,  and 
as  such  they  have  circulated  them.  Can  we  then  have  better 
evidence  of  their  doctrines  than  these  ?  That  they  have  doc- 
trines which  they  consider  fundamental  and  essential,  their 
discipline  fully  declares.  Where  can  we  find  them  better  than 
in  their  standard  works ;  their  declarations  of  faith,  written  by 
the  venerable  and  pious  fathers  of  their  church  to  whom  they 


140 

all  look  up  as  high  authority.  It  is  impossible  then  that  there 
should  be  any  truth  in  the  idea  that  they  have  no  fundamental 
doctrines  ;  the  evidence  to  the  contrary  is  too  strong  and  too  con- 
clusive. I  beg  leave  also  to  refer  the  court  to  a  publication  made 
by  the  society  of  Friends,  by  the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia, 
to  be  found  in  4th  vol.  Mosheim  Ecc.  Hist.  pp.  284-288.  It  is 
proved  by  Samuel  Bettlc,  vol.  I.  Ev.  p.  71,  that  this  publication 
was  made  under  the  sanction  of  the  society.  It  is  called  "  A 
vindication  of  the  Quakers"  and  holds  this  language,  viz.  "  We 
believe  the  scriptures  of  the  old  and  new  Testament  to  be  of 
divine  original,  and  give  full  credit  to  the  historical  facts  as  well 
as  the  doctrines  therein  delivered,  and  never  had  any  doubt  of 
the  truth  of  the  actual  birth,  life,  sufTerings,  death,  resurrection, 
and  ascension  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  as  related  by 
the  evangelist,  without  any  mental  or  other  reserve,  or  the  least 
diminution  by  allegorical  explanation ;  and  there  is  not,  nor  ever 
has  been,  any  essential  difference  in  faith  or  practice,  between 
Friends  in  Europe  and  America ;  but  a  correspondence  is  regu- 
larly maintained,  and  love,  harmony  and  unity,  have  been  pre- 
served down  to  this  day,  and  we  hope  and  believe,  under  divine 
favour,  nothing  will  be  able  to  scatter  or  divide  us." 

In  the  same  book  is  a  publication  made  by  the  society  of 
Friends  in  New  England.  It  was  deemed  important  that  the 
misrepresentations  of  Friends  contained  in  Mosheim,  should  be 
corrected,  and  the  society  in  England  having  adopted  this  course, 
for  this  purpose,  it  was  also  adopted  by  the  yearly  meetings  in 
New  England  and  in  Philadelphia.  These  publications  all  took 
place  before  the  present  schism  arose  in  this  community.  I  do 
not  propose  to  refer  the  court  to  all  the  standard  works,  which 
have  been  quoted  by  the  gentleman  associated  with  me :  it  would 
be  superfluous ;  but  from  the  evidence  which  we  have  produced, 
I  submit  to  the  court,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  ancient  Friends 
and  of  the  society  down  to  the  present  day,  is  fully  and  fairly 
made  out  to  the  satisfaction  of  every  candid  mind. 

I  shall,  in  the  next  (third)  place,  call  the  attention  of  the  court, 
upon  this  point,  to  the  testimony  of  witnesses,  of  respectable 
ministers,  men  who  are  perfectly  acquainted  with  all  the  princi- 
ples of  the  society,  from  their  youth  upwards.  The  first  witness 
is  Samuel  Bettle.    If  there  is  any  man  whose  station  entitled 


141 

him  to  a  knowledge  of  the  doctrines  of  the  society  of  Friends,  it 
is  this  witness.  He  has  been  clerk  and  assistant  clerk  of  the  year- 
ly meeting,  for  twenty  years.  The  witness  says,  Vol.  I.  Ev.  p. 
58.  "  The  society  have  avoided  the  term  trinity ;  they  however 
hold  the  doctrine  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  as  stated 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  they  prefer  confining  their  statements 
of  views  in  relation  to  that  doctrine,  to  the  terms  used  in  the 
New  Testament.  They  have  avoided  the  use  of  the  word  per- 
son and  three  distinct  persons,  as  not  in  their  apprehension 
scriptural,  and  as  conveying,  in  their  apprehension,  an  idea  too 
gross  for  so  sublime  and  spiritual  a  subject.  I  have  always 
understood  that  in  all  other  respects,  the  society  hold  fully  the 
doctrine  as  held  by  other  protestant  sects  of  christians,  avoiding 
the  term  person,  being  the  only  difference  between  them  of 
which  I  am  aware  in  reference  to  this  particular  doctrine. 

"  The  society  of  Friends  do  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
atonement,  and  have  always  so  believed.  They  believe,  and 
what  they  understand  by  the  term  atonement  is,  that  our  Lord 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  suffered  without  the  gates  of  Jerusalem, 
offering  himself  up  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world,  and  that  by  this  offering,  through  faith,  repentance 
and  obedience,  man  may  become  purified  from  sin.  Their  creed 
on  this  doctrine  is  in  the  words  of  the  New  Testament ;  they 
take  it  as  they  find  it.  Witness  uses  the  word  creed  here  as 
synonymous  with  belief.  It  is  believed  by  the  society  that  in  no 
other  way  than  by  the  atonement  of  our  Saviour  can  man  be 
purified  from  sin.  This  is  the  way  appointed  by  God,  that  is, 
by  the  offering  up  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  without 
the  gates  of  Jerusalem,  by  the  efficacy  of  which,  through  faith, 
repentance,  and  obedience,  remission  of  sins  is  received.  This 
has  always  been  fundamental  with  the  society. 

"  They  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary; 
•agreeably  to  the  declaration  of  the  evangelist  John,  in  substance, 
that  "  in  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with 
God,  and  the  Word  was  God  ;"  that  the  Word  was  made  flesh,  or 
took  fiesh,  and  dwelt  among  men  ;  and  that  this  Word,  that  was 
made  flesh,  was  the  same  Jesus  that  was  born  at  Bethehem,  mira- 
cuously  conceived  and  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  for  the  great  and 
necessary,  and  holy  purposes  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament, 


142 

indispensable  through  the  inscrutable  counsels  of  God,  for  the 
salvation  of  man.  This  is  also  fundamental  and  always  has  been. 
In  addition  to  what  the  witness  has  said  above,  respecting  the 
trinity,  he  now  further  saith,  that  the  society  believe  and  hold, 
and  always  have  so  believed,  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  are  one,  these  three  are  one  ;  they  always  express  it  in 
that  way. 

"  The  society  also  believe  in  the  resurrection  and  ascension  of 
the  body  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  as  it  is  clearly 
expressed  and  taught  in  the  scriptures,  corroborated  by  his  speak- 
ing from  heaven  in  his  glorified  state,  declaring  in  his  own  words, 
"  I  am  Jesus  of  Nazareth." 

"  The  society  believe  that  the  scriptures  were  given  forth  by 
holy  men  as  they  were  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  they  have 
always  received  them  as  the  outward  test  and  rule  of  doctrine, 
and  that  all  doctrines  which  are  inconsistent  with  the  doctrines 
of  the  scripture  are  to  be  rejected.  Barclay  is  very  full  and  explicit 
on  this  subject,  and  very  strong  language  he  uses.  These  doc- 
trines are  the  ancient  doctrines  of  the  society,  and  have  always 
been  held  by  them  since  my  acquaintance  with  them.  The 
peculiar  views  of  the  society  expose  them  to  much  objection, 
suffering  and  misrepresentation.  When  speaking  of  their  pecu- 
liar views,  the  witness  does  not  mean  particularly  their  doctrines 
above  mentioned  as  differing  so  much  from  other  societies  of 
christians,  but  more  particularly  their  testimonies  against  wars, 
oaths,  and  in  relation  to  ministers,  and  other  things,  which  have 
exposed  them  to  suffering  and  very  frequently  to  misrepresentation. 
Hence,  witness  believes,  that  no  religious  society  whatever,  has 
published  so  frequently,  and  so  fully,  their  religious  doctrines  to 
the  world,  as  the  society  of  Friends,  and  this  has  arisen  out  of 
the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed,  as  I  have 
mentioned."  It  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  go  through  all  the  ev- 
idence on  this  subject.  I  will  therefore  only  refer  the  court  to . 
the  passages,  viz.  William  Jackson,  vol.  I.  Ev.  p.  98,  99 ;  Thomas 
Willis,  lb.  p.  108,  109;  Joseph  Whitall,  lb.  p.  213;  Thomas 
Evans,  lb.  p.  291  to  306. 

These  witnesses  express  fully  the  belief  of  the  society  in  the 
inspiration  of  the  holy  scriptures,  in  the  divinity  and  atonement 
of  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  substantially; 
though  they  do  not  make  use  of  the  word  trinity  or  person,  they 


143 

take  the  scripture  language  and  adopt  it  without  any  attempt  at 
explanation  by  them.  In  this  respect  I  think  they  have  been 
wise.  It  is  impossible  for  man  to  comprehend  this  solemn  and 
mysterious  subject.  It  is  above  human  comprehension.  We 
know  nothing  of  the  nature  of  God,  or  of  the  mode  of  his  existence 
except  what  he  has  been  pleased  to  reveal.  He  has  revealed  all 
that  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  know,  and  for  man  to  undertake  to 
examine  into  the  nature  of  the  Godhead  beyond  that,  is  presump- 
tuous; perhaps  even  the  angels  in  heaven  do  not  understand  it. 
It  is  beyond  the  comprehension  of  finite  man.  This  attempt  to 
define  the  nature  of  the  trinity,  has  produced  more  controversy 
than  any  other  subject.  I  do  not  mean  as  to  the  fact  of  the 
existence  of  the  three,  but  as  to  the  manner  of  their  existence 
and  the  nature  of  their  connexion.  The  Fi-iends  therefore  reject 
the  use  of  the  words  trinity  and  person.  The  word  trinity,  I 
believe  was  not  used  till  the  second  century,  but  from  that  time 
to  the  present,  controversies  have  continually  arisen,  not  as  to 
there  being  three,  or  these  three  being  one,  but  as  to  the  mode 
and  manner  of  it. 

It  is  certainly  true  that  men  cannot  be  expected  to  entertain 
the  same  opinions  as  to  all  points  in  matters  of  religion,  any  more 
than  in  human  affairs ;  but  they  must  unite  in  all  the  essentials 
of  the  religion  they  profess,  in  order  to  worship  harmoniously. 
They  cannot  exist  as  a  religious  society,  they  cannot  unite  in  fel- 
lowship and  communion,  unless  they  agree  as  regards  all  the 
leading  and  fundamental  principles  of  the  christian  religion.  It 
is  sufficient  then  for  us  to  show,  that  the  society  of  Friends  do 
believe,  and  always  have  believed,  in  the  doctrine  of  the  three 
that  bear  record  in  heaven  ;  in  the  divinity  and  atonement  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ;  that  the  scriptures  were  written  by  inspired 
men ;  that  those  who  penned  them  were  guided  by  a  divine  in- 
fluence, and  that  they  were  given  for  our  instruction  and  correc- 
tion. They  hold  these  doctrines  to  be  the  great  fundamentals  of 
the  christian  religion,  and  I  believe  I  may  say  that  the  great 
mass  of  christians  so  believe  them  ;  for  although  some  sects  in 
modern  times  have  questioned  some  of  those  doctrines,  yet  few, 
very  few,  have  doubted  the  authenticity  of  the  sacred  scriptures. 
When  therefore  we  prove  by  witnesses,  as  well  as  by  written 
documents  that  the  society  does  unite  in  these  fundamental  prin- 


144 

ciples  we  must  lake  them  as  their  received  and  standard  doc- 
trines, the  test  by  which  their  members  must  stand  or  fall.  1 
think  I  need  not  dwell  longer  on  this  branch  of  the  subject.  I 
have  now  a  more  unpleasant  duty  to  perform  ;  to  show  that  these 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  christian  religion  are  rejected  by 
Elias  Hicks  and  his  adherents. 

I  shall  undertake  to  prove  first,  from  the  testimony  of  witness- 
es, that  Elias  Hicks  dei Jed  these  general  doctrines  not  only  in 
conversation,  but  in  his  public  ministry,  in  the  meetings  of  the 
society.  He  denied  the  authenticity  and  authority  of  the  holy 
scriptures,  and  a  belief  in  the  doctrines  of  the  divinity  and  atone- 
ment of  our  Saviour.  He  divided  between  Jesus  and  Christ,  as- 
serting that  Jesus  was  a  mere  man,  as  any  other  good  man,  and 
that  Christ  was  the  divine  spirit  by  which  he  was  actuated,  that 
this  divine  spirit  is  given  to  every  man  as  it  was  to  Jesus,  that 
Jesus  having  a  greater  work  to  perform,  had  five  talents  commit- 
ted to  him,  that  is,  greater  gifts  of  the  spirit  than  most  men,  but 
that  he  had  no  more  than  just  what  was  necessary  to  finish  his 
work,  and  every  man  has  as  much  as  he,  in  proportion  to  the 
work  required ;  he  admitted  him  to  be  perfect,  but  still  held  that 
he  was  onlv  a  fallible  man. 

Upon  these  points  I  shall  refer  in  the  first  place  to  the  testimo- 
ny of  William  Jackson,  vol.  I.  Ev.  p.  100.  Witness  says :  "It  was 
the  common  report,  that  Elias  Hicks  was  in  unity  with  and  ac- 
cepted by  the  Green  and  Cherry  Street  meetings,  1  understood 
it  so.  I  have  held  a  conversation  with  Elias  Hicks,  on  the  subject 
of  the  divinity  of  our  Saviour,  and  the  divine  origin  of  the  scrip- 
tures. The  conversation  arose  from  this  circumstance  ;  1  was  at 
a  meeting  in  New  Fork,  and  in  the  course  of  what  he  said  there, 
in  his  public  testimony,  in  a  public  meeting  for  worship,  he  utter- 
ed such  sentiments  asl  never  heard  from  any  Friend  in  the  whole 
course  of  my  life.  The  substance  of  it,  or  that  part  that  atfected 
me  most,  was  the  manner  in  which  he  expressed  himself  with 
respect  to  our  Saviour,  bringing  him  down  to  the  level  of  a  man, 
saying,  that  "  he  was  put  to  death  by  the  hands  of  wicked  men, 
and  suffered  as  a  martyr,  as  many  others  since  that  time  had 
done."  Never  having  heard  such  sentiments  delivered  either  by 
professor  or  profane,  I  thought  it  my  duty,  as  a  brother,  to  go 
to  his  house,  and  have  further  conversation  with  him  on  the  sub- 


145 

ject ;  accordingly  I  went  a  few  days  after,  and  had  an  opportu- 
nity with  him  ;  I  don't  recollect  that  there  were  any  persons  pre- 
sent but  ourselves.  I  let  him  know  my  uneasiness,  and  we  had 
considerable  discourse  on  the  subject.  I  cannot  now  pretend  to 
remember,  so  as  to  relate  all  of  it,  but  so  far  he  went,  as  to  assert, 
that  "  there  was  as  much  scripture  testimony  to  prove  that  he 
was  no  more  than  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  as  there  was  to 
prove  to  the  contrary."  I  brought  forward  the  testimonies  of  the 
two  Evangelists,  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  he  said  "  that  they 
were  but  fables,  or  fabulous ;"  that  "  they  were  no  more  than 
fables."  I  was  exceedingly  astonished  at  him,  for  as  I  said  before, 
I  had  never  heard  such  language  from  either  professor  or  pro- 
fane. He  said  he  was  confident  of  what  he  said,  it  was  a  thing 
impossible,  spirit  only  could  beget  spirit,  it  could  not  beget  ma- 
terial matter.  I  said  some  things  in  objection,  but  cannot  recol- 
lect what  I  said.  In  the  course  of  the  conversation,  he  further 
said  :  "  It  is  believed  God  is  a  Spirit,  Dost  thou  believe  it,  I  be- 
lieve it.  Spirit  can  only  beget  spirit ;"  and  repeated  it  several 
times,  asserting  that  he  was  as  confident  of  it,  as  that  he  was 
standing  there,  talking  with  me.  Then  I  said  to  him  "  Elias,  if 
this  be  thy  belief,  how  came  the  creation  of  the  world  ?"  His  an- 
swer to  my  question  was,  "  What  of  the  creation  ?"  I  said  to  him, 
"  Why,  the  account  of  the  creation  we  have  in  the  bible."  Then 
he  replies  to  me,  "  Why,  that's  only  Moses's  account."  Then  I 
replied  to  him  "  Is  it  not  a  sufficient  account  for  us  to  believe  ?" 
His  answer  to  that  was,  "  it  is  but  an  allegory ;"  and  there  the 
conversation  ended." 

If  this  is  not  denying  the  holy  scriptures,  and  destroying  the 
christian's  faith  in  them;  if  it  is  not  denying  the  miraculous  con- 
ception of  Jesus  Christ,  and  making  him  a  mere  man,  I  know  not 
what  is. 

1  refer  the  court  in  the  next  place  to  the  evidence  of  Thomas 
Willis,  vol.  I.  p.  109.  He  says, "  I  was  acquainted  with  Elias  Hicks 
from  my  youth  up,  embracing  a  period  of  more  than  forty  years  ; 
he  was  a  member  of  the  same  monthly  meeting  with  myself.  He 
is  not  now  living,  was  not  a  member  of  the  society  of  Friends  at 
the  time  of  his  death ;  he  had  been  disowned  by  them.  The 
causes  of  his  disownment  were,  a  departure  from  the  doctrines 
and  principles  of  the  society,  and  an  avowal  of  antichristian  sen- 

T 


146 

liments.     The  time  of  his  disownmenl  was  in  the  year  1829,  in 
fifth  month.     He  had  for  a  number  of  years  before  his  disovvn- 
ment,  and  on  different  occasions,  uttered  sentiments  and  doctrines 
that  gave  uneasiness  to  the  society.     I  have  a  copy  of  the  min- 
ute of  his  disownment,  which  is  taken  from  the  minutes  of  the 
monthly  meeting  to  which  he  belonged,  being  the  monthly  meet- 
ing of  Westbury  and  Jericho.     For  some  time  before  his  disown- 
ment, for  a  number  of  years,  he  had  been  frequently,  and  at  va- 
rious times,  privately  admonished  by  different  individuals  on  the 
subject  of  his  departure.     In  regard  to  myself,  in  former  years,  I 
esteemed  him  highly  as  a  minister,  and  a  useful  member  of  socie- 
ty, and  although  I  sometimes  heard  expressions  and  some  senti- 
ments avowed  by  him,  with  which  I  could  not  unite,  yet  from  the 
esteem  I  always  had  for  him,  and  the  confidence   which  I  had 
placed  in   him,   I  was  very  loath  to  believe  a  want  of  integrity, 
and  soundness  on  his  part,  until  about  the  years    1818   and  20. 
When  observing  that  he  had  embraced  and  began  to  promulgate 
some  views,  that  were  not  in  accordance  wilh  the  doctrines  of  our 
society,  I  became  seriously  uneasy,  and  endeavoured  to  discharge 
my  duty  towards  him  accordingly.     In  consequence  of  this  unea- 
siness I  waited  on  him.     The  interview  resulted  rather  in  the 
confirmation  of  my  uneasiness.     In  general,  I  perceived  his  view 
and  belief  of  the  scriptures  to  be  not  in  accordance  with  the  doc- 
trines of  our  society,  placing  them  on  the  same  ground  as  any 
other  histor}^  exciting  doubts  of  some  important  truths  declared 
in  them,  particularly  in  relation  to  the  divine  character  and  holy 
offices  of  our  blessed  Redeemer,  his  miraculous  conception,  the 
eflicacy  of  his  sufferings  and  death  as  a  propitiatory  offering  for 
the  sins  of  mankind,  his  intercession  and  mediation  as  our  Advo- 
cate with  the  Father.     These  were  the  principal  points  of  doc- 
trine.    In  relation  to  the  character  of  our  blessed  Lord,  he  has 
placed  him  on  the  same  ground  as  other  men.    I  have  heard  him 
testify  in  public  meetings,  that  "  Jesus  assumed  nothing  more  to 
himself  than  other  prophets  did,  that  he  was  very  careful  not  to 
do  it,  saving  in  a  few  instances  calling  himself  the  Son  of  God, 
that  as  he  steadily  kept  in  view  his  entire  dependent  state,  he 
never  called  the  people  to  himself,  but  only  directed  them  to  the 
Spirit  of  Truth  in  their  own  minds  ;  and  that  this  is  all  we  want, 
for  when  we  once  come  to  believe  in  this,  then  instrumental  helps 


147 

have  done  all  they  can  do  for  us,  their  usefulness  is  very  soon  at 
an  end  with  the  true  christian,  he  is  brought  to  the  foundation, 
he  needs  then  no  more ;  although  we  value  the  scriptures  which 
are  written  and  bound  up  in  the  book  we  call  the  bible,  as  well 
as  other  scriptures  written  by  other  wise  and  good  men,  yet  the 
scriptures  do  not  properlv  belong  to  any,  but  those  to  whom  they 
were  written ;  they  are  so  far  from  being  any  rule  to  the  true 
christian,  that  they  are  inconsistent  and  contradictory  to  them- 
selves, and  there  is  not  an  agreement  in  them  in  any  general 
way."  Similar  views  of  the  scriptures  have  also  been  promul- 
gated by  him  in  conversation  and  by  writing,  and  he  has  acknow- 
ledged his  departure  from  the  belief  of  the  society  respecting 
them,  by  saying,  that  his  conscience  had  often  smitten  him  when 
he  had  been  endeavouring  to  hold  up  the  belief  of  the  society  of 
Friends  respecting  them,  in  setting  them  so  far  above  other  books. 
He  has  represented  them  as  being  the  principal  cause  of  the 
apostacy  in  the  primitive  church,  and  that  they  w^ere  not  useful 
in  bringing  about  Jhe  reformation,  and  in  fine  that  they  have 
been  the  cause  of  fourfold  more  harm  than  good  to  Christendom 
since  the  apostle's  days.  These  and  similar  views  respecting 
the  scriptures,  being  promulgated  by  him,  were,  among  others, 
introduced  into  my  own  family,  by  letters  directed  to  my  wife, 
which  I  have  now  with  me,  in  his  own  hand  writing." 

Again  in  p.  Ill :  "  These  sentiments  which  had  been  thus  pro- 
pagated by  Elias  Hicks  in  his  public  discourses,  in  his  letters  and 
conversations,  were  in  violation  of  what  has  always  been  held  to 
be  fundamental  upon  those  points,  by  the  society  of  Friends.  I 
have  a  recollection  of  his  expressions  on  those  subjects,  on 
various  occasions.  I  have  heard  him  declare  in  public,  when 
speaking  on  the  character  and  constitution  of  our  Saviour,  and 
in  allusion  to  his  miraculous  conception,  "  that  tiesh  must  unite 
with  flesh  to  make  a  being,  but  flesh  and  spirit  never  can  unite." 
"  God  can  create,  but  he  cannot  beget."  "  The  Son  must  be  of 
the  same  nature  with  the  Father."  I  have  also  frequently 
heard  him  express  his  view^s  on  the  subject  of  the  atonement. 
In  relation  to  the  sufferings  or  offering  of  Christ,  he  said  that  he 
could  not  believe  that  it  was  an  offering  designed  by  the  Father, 
but  that  circumstances  led  to  it  in  the  same  manner  as  they  had 
done  in  the  case  of  many  other  martyrs.     I  have  heard  him  use 


148 

similar  expressions  many  diaerent  times.  He  continued  to  pro- 
mulgate these  sentiments  in  his  public  ministry  up  to  the  time  of 
his  disownment,  and  was  disowned  for  that  cause.  Pie  was 
a  man  to  whom  society  generally  was  very  much  attached 
in  former  years,  whereby  he  gained  great  influence  in  the  society. 
I  believe  his  popularity  as  a  preacher  owing  in  considerable 
measure  to  the  boldness  of  his  conceptions,  and  originality  of 
thought.  Although  he  was  not  disowned  for  his  unsoundness 
until  lately,  yet  his  departure  from  our  principles  was  a  subject 
of  general  conversation  and  remark  in  the  society  for  several 
years.  He  had  been  the  subject  of  admonition  and  care,  on  the 
part  of  some  of  the  elders  of  his  own  meeting,  for  a  long  time 
before  his  disownment,  but  most  of  the  elders  of  his  own  meeting, 
were  his  adherents.  This  departure  of  his,  was  extensively 
spread  through  the  society,  and  it  was  a  subject  of  general 
remark  and  conversation  in  other  yearly  meetings,  beside  that  to 
which  he  belonged." 

I  shall  next  refer  the  court  to  the  testimony  of  Samuel  Parsons, 
Vol.  I.  Ev.  p.   173.     He  says,  "  The  unsound  opinions  and  doc- 
trines  promulgated    by    Elias    Hicks,  and    for   which   he    was 
disowned  were  generally  in  relation  to  the  holy  scriptures  and 
to  the  character  of  the  Saviour.     In  relation  to  the  character  of 
the  Saviour,  I  have  heard  him  express  in  his  public  communica- 
tions, the  following  sentiments :  "  The  people  must  be    totally 
turned  from  any  attention  to  the  outward  manifestation  or  suf- 
ferings of  Jesus,  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews,  the  design  of  whose 
coming  was  to  put  an  end  to  the  law  of  Moses  and  its  ordinan- 
ces.    He  was  an    Israelite,   and    was  not   furnished   with  any 
more  ability  than  the  other  Israelites."     "  Jesus  never  gave  him- 
self a  higher  character  than  the  son  of  man."     "  There  is  no  me- 
diator betwixt  God  and  man  :  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  believe 
that  he  had  ever  directed  one  Son  of  God  to  reveal  his  will  to  all 
the  other  sons  of  God."     "  Jesus  was  the  first  Son  of  God  ;  men- 
tioning the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  is  a  species  of  idolatry."     "  We 
can  all  attain  to  the  same  state  that  Jesus  did,  to  be  equal  vvith 
God,  as  the  sons  of  a  family  are  equal  with  the  father  who  takes 
counsel  with  them.     It  was  never  designed  nor  intended  that  he 
should  suffer  death  by  men,  for  what  man  would  be  saved  by 
the  blood  of  an  innocent  brother  !"   "  With  regard  to  the  Almigh- 


149 

ty's  speaking  by  his  Son,  what  kind  of  a  father,  would  that  be, 
that  would  speak  to  his  children  by  his  eldest  son,  instead  of 
speaking  directly  to  them."  "  He  was  inferior,  seeing  there  could 
be  but  one  that  had  no  beginning,  and  that  was  the  Almighty." 
"  With  regard  to  the  miracles  which  he  wrought,  it  was  the  weak- 
est evidence  which  could  be  aflbrded,  only  suited  to  that  low 
dispensation,  and  was  no  evidence  to  us ;  if  there  would  be  any 
use  in  it,  men  might  work  miracles  now." 

"  On  the  subject  of  the  holy  scriptures  he  said, "  The  scriptures 
say,  one  one  thing,  and  one  another,  and  it  cannot  be  ascertained 
from  them,  whether  Jesus  was  the  son  of  Joseph  or  not ;"  "  there 
were  thirty  gospels  written,  and  these  we  have  left,  were  selected 
in  the  dark  night  of  apostacy."  "  The  scriptures  may  be,  and  no 
doubt  are,  in  the  early  part  of  a  religious  life,  yet  as  pointing  to 
something  better  ;  they  are  of  no  use  when  an  advanced  state  is 
attained  to.  Amidst  much  good,  there  is  a  great  deal  that  is 
otherwise  ;  the  narratives  of  the  evangelists  are  full  of  inconsisten- 
cies with  each  other ;  it  had  been  better  there  had  been  only  one, 
and  then  it  could  not,  at  least,  have  been  charged  with  inconsis- 
tency ;  there  was  but  one  copy  formerly  extant,  which  the  Pope 
got  and  modelled  to  his  mind."  "  There  is  no  reliance  to  be  placed 
on  books  or  men,  all  outward  means  are  to  be  rejected,  and  all 
external  miracles  had  no  effect  in  promoting  the  gospel."  These 
sentiments  were  publicly  expressed  by  him  in  the  meetings  of 
the  society,  and  for  persevering  in  preaching  and  teaching  them, 
he  was  disowned.  After  his  disownment  he  was  generally 
reputed  to  be  in  full  unity  with  the  meeting  in  Green  street, 
and  that  spoken  of  in  New  York,  in  correspondence  with  it,  and 
was  an  accepted  minister  with  them  :  it  is  well  understood  to  be 
the  case." 

I  refer  also  to  pages  142,  143.  150.  160,  101.  of  the  same  evi- 
dence  ;  to  the  evidence  of  Joseph  Whitall,  lb.  pp.  2i4,  215.  This 
witness  is  very  explicit:  he  says,  "  For  several  years  previous  to 
1822,  I  had  no  opportunity  of  hearing  him  [Elias  Hicks]  publicly. 
But  at  the  time  of  the  yearly  meeting  in  that  year,  in  a  public 
meeting  on  tirst  day  immediately  preceding  the  yearly  meeting 
at  New  York,  he  uttered  these  remarkable  words,  *'  that  the 
same  power  which  made  Christ  a  christian,  must  rn;ikt  us  chris 


150 

tians,  and  the  same  power  that  saved  him  must  save  us."   1  never 
before  had  heard  such  sentiments  advanced  by  any  minister  in  our 
society,  and  believing  that  it  was  a  clear  denial  that  Jesus  was 
the  Christ,  I  felt  it  my  religious  duty  to  take  a  private  opportu- 
nity with  him  at  his  lodgings,     i  informed  him  that  I  had  enter- 
tained a  high  regard  for  him  from  the  first  of  our  acquaintance  to 
thepresent  time ;  and  withal  informed  him  of  the  great  uneasiness 
he  had  given  me  in  his  public  communications  by  bringing  Christ 
down  to  the  level  of  a  mere  man.     He  replied  that"  it  was  a  mat- 
ter of  the  greatest  encouragement  to  him,  to  believe  that  Christ 
was  no  more  than  a  man,  for  if  he  were  any  thing  more,  it  would 
destroy  the  effect  of  his  example,  to  him."     I  repeated  to  him 
the  text,  that  "  the  Word  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us," 
as  is  stated  in  John.    He  said,  "  it  was  impossible."    In  the  course 
of  the  conversation  with  him,  he  further  said,  "  that  it  was  an 
abomination  to  pray  to  Jesus  Christ."     As  regarded  the  scrip- 
tures he  said,  "  they  were  the  cause  of  more  bloodshed  and  con- 
fusion, than  any  other  thing ;  and  that  it  was  a  pity  the  epistles 
had  ever  been  handed  down  to  us."  In  the  course  of  the  conver- 
sation, he  asked  me  if  I  had  ever  seen  a  pamphlet  called  the 
'  Celestial  magnet.'     I  told  him,  that  I  had  seen  one  number  to 
my   great  dissatisfaction,  as  the  author  attempted  to  show  or 
prove  that  Christ  was  the  illegitimate  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary. 
He  said, "  not  the  illegitimate,  but  the  legitimate  son  of  Joseph  and 
Mary."     I  told  him  I  thought  I  could  not  be  mistaken,  for  I  had 
read  it  but  a  few  weeks  before.    He  then  went  into  an  argument 
of  considerable  length,  as  I  understood  it,   that  Christ  was  the 
son  of  Joseph.     He  said  that  "  he  had    believed  the   account 
traditionally,    as    contained   in    the  scriptures,   concerning    the 
miraculous  conception,  but  on  further  examination  of  the  evan- 
gelists, there  was  in  them,  greater  proof  than  otherwise,  of  his 
being  the  son  of  Joseph."     I  have  omitted  one  part  that  ought 
to  have  come  in  before,  respecting  Christ,  one  assertion  he  made, 
he  said,  "  it  was  his  belief  that  Christ  was    liable  to  fall  like 
other  men."     During  that  opportunity  he  also  declared  that  "  as 
it  was  lawful  and  right  for  George  Fox  in  his  day,  to  differ  in 
sentiment  from  the  prevailing  doctrines  of  the  age,  and  to  make 
advances  in  the  reformation,  so  it  was  right  for  him,  meaning 
himself,  Elias  Hicks,  to  make  further  advances."     In  objecting 


151 

to  the  propriety  of  his  promulgating  such  opinions  in  the  meet- 
ings of  Friends  and  imposing  them  as  the  doctrines  of  our  society, 
1  expressed  my  beUef  that  "  if  he  persisted  to  do  so,  it  would 
produce  in  our  society  the  greatest  schism  that  had  ever  hap- 
pened ;"  he  admitted  it  would  produce  a  schism,  but  said  it 
would  be  of  short  duration,  for  his  doctrines  must  and  would 
prevail."  I  laboured  with  him  in  great  tenderness,  to  reexamine 
the  grounds  he  had  taken,  to  which  he  replied,  he  would.  After 
the  yearly  meeting  closed,  still  feeling  my  mind  very  uneasy  on 
his  account,  I  went  again  to  his  lodgings,  and  proposed  to  him, 
to  have  a  few  judicious  friends  invited  to  come  together,  to  dis- 
cuss those  important  subjects  that  we  had  conversed  about,  for 
it  was  one  in  which  the  happiness  and  welfare  of  society  not  only 
there,  but  everywhere,  was  involved.  He  said,  "  It  was  in  vain 
to  reason  with  him  on  the  subject,  for  his  mind  was  so  made  up, 
that  he  was  determined  to  persevere,  let  the  consequences  be 
what  they  might." 

"  In  first  month,  1823,  he  was  at  Woodbury,  it  was  on  the  15th 
day  of  the  month.  I  thought  it  proper  for  me  then  to  take  ano- 
ther opportunity  with  him,  relative  to  a  communication  in  writ- 
ing, which  he  had  sent  to  a  number  of  the  elders  in  Philadelphia, 
in  which  he  had  made  some  misstatement  of  my  words ;  in  this 
letter  he  charged  me  with  acting  unfriendly,  contrary  to  disci- 
pline, and  putting  an  improper  or  false  construction  upon  his 
words.  (I  give  the  substance,  but  I  do  not  pretend  to  give  the 
words  verbatim.)  I  let  him  know  that  I  did  not  consider  it  un- 
friendly, or  contrary  to  discipline,  to  make  a  statement  of  the 
doctrines  he  published,  as  I  considered  it  as  a  species  of  public 
property.  He  said,  he  did  not  consider  that  it  was  an  occasion 
of  offence,  for  what  he  preached  publicly  he  would  stand  by. 
He  then  referred  to  some  remarks  he  had  made  in  conversation, 
and  thought  that  unkind,  as  he  considered  it  a  confidential  con- 
versation. I  told  him  I  did  not  consider  it  so,  neither  had  he 
requested  it,  and  I  think  held  up  to  him  the  inconsistency  of 
wishing  me  to  be  silent  on  doctrines  he  was  spreading  both  pub- 
licly and  privately.  He  then  gave  up  the  point  entirely,  as  act- 
ing towards  him  unfriendly,  or  contrary  to  discipline,  when  I 
reminded  him  of  what  had  passed  at  New  York.     I  then  wanted 

to  know  wherein  I  had  wrested  his  words,  or  put  an  improper 

y 


152 

construction  upon  them.  He  took  out  of  his  pocket  a  letter 
addressed  to  him  by  some  of  the  elders  of  Philadelphia,  and  point- 
ed to  one  paragraph,  which  they  informed  him  I  had  asserted  as 
what  he  had  declared  as  his  doctrines.  It  was  the  declaration 
1  heard  him  make  at  New  York,  that  Christ  was  no  more  than 
a  man,  &c.  He  remarked,  that  I  ought  to  have  stated  as  his 
words,  that  "  Christ  was  no  more  than  an  Israelite,"  and  that 
with  that  he  would  have  been  satisfied.  I  informed  him,  it  was 
my  decided  belief,  that  I  had  repeated  the  words  rerhatim,  hav- 
ing made  a  memorandum  of  them  shortly  after.  He  then  stated, 
that  "  Christ  was  like  the  other  Israelites,  and  differed  from  them 
in  fulfilling  the  law,  having  had  a  sufficient  portion  of  the  Spirit 
so  to  do,  as  every  other  Israelite  had.  He  considered  "  that  Christ 
was  like  a  son  who  was  dutiful  and  faithful  in  all  things  to  his 
father,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  be  entrusted  with  the  keys  of  his 
treasury."  I  informed  him  that  I  did  fully  believe  his  views 
throughout,  on  the  points  we  had  discussed,  were  at  variance 
with  the  scriptures  of  truth,  and  the  doctrines  of  ancient  Friends ; 
and  that  we,  as  a  religious  body,  had  published  to  the  world, 
that  we  were  willing  that  our  doctrines  and  practices  should  be 
tested  by  the  scriptures  of  truth.  He  said,  "  he  was  not  willing 
that  his  doctrines  should  be  tried  by  the  scriptures,  or  the  writ- 
ings of  ancient  Friends;  and  that  he  believed  George  Fox,  Wil- 
liam Penn  and  Robert  Barclay  thought  as  he  did,  but  they  were 
afraid  to  come  out." 

It  appears  to  me  impossible  that  this  witness  should  be  mista- 
ken. It  was  no  accidental  or  transierit  conversation  that  he 
had  with  Mr.  Hicks,  but  one  sought  for  the  very  purpose  of 
speaking  with  him,  relative  to  his  doctrines,  and  to  the  uneasi- 
ness which  they  excited.  Mr.  Hicks  enters  into  an  argument 
to  prove  that  his  doctrines  are  right,  and  expresses  a  determina- 
tion to  persist  in  the  promulgation  of  them,  let  the  consequences 
be  what  they  might.  He  admitted  that  it  would  produce  a 
schism,  but  it  would  be  of  short  duration  ;  and  subsequently, 
when  the  witness  stated  to  him  the  disagreement  between  his 
views  and  those  of  the  founders  of  the  society,  he  expressly  says, 
that  he  is  not  willing  his  doctrines  should  be  tried  by  the  scrip- 
tures, or  the  writings  of  ancient  Friends.  Here  is  a  distinct 
admission,  that  he  differs  from  the  fathers  of  the  church,  from 


153 

the  primitive  Friends  ;  that  he  was  holding  out  new  Hghts,  and 
setting  up  for  a  new  guide  ;  that  he  was  better  qualified  to  in- 
struct in  ills  day,  than  Fox  and  Barclay  were  in  theirs,  and  that 
although  he  knew  his  conduct  would  produce  a  schism,  yet  he 
was  determined  to  persist  in  it,  though  he  saw  it  must  rend  the 
society  in  sunder. 

Without  detaining  the  court  with  reading  more  of  the  testi- 
mony, I  think  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks  are  fully  made  out  by 
the  evidence  of  these  witnesses.  But  we  have  not  to  rely  on  the 
testimony  of  witnesses  only,  we  have  his  own  letters,  under  his 
own  hand,  in  which  he  states  his  doctrinal  views  distinctly ;  there 
are  several  of  (hese  letters  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  their 
meaning.  The  first  of  these  to  which  I  shall  call  the  attention 
of  the  court,  is  from  Elias  Hicks  to  Phebe  Willis,  dated  the  19th 
of  fifth  month,  1818.  Vol.  H.  Ev.  p.  416.  In  this  letter  he  says, 
"  But  having  for  a  considerable  time  past,  found  from  full  con- 
viction, that  there  is  scarcely  any  thing  so  baneful  to  the  present 
and  future  happiness  and  welfare  of  mankind,  as  a  submission  to 
tradition  and  popular  opinion,  I  have  therefore  been  led  to  see 
the  necessity  of  investigating  for  myself,  all  customs  and  doctrines, 
whether  of  a  moral  or  of  a  religious  nature,  either  verbally,  or 
historically  communicated,  by  the  best  and  greatest  of  men,  or 
angels,  and  not  to  set  down  satisfied  with  any  thing  but  the  plain, 
clear,  demonstrative  testimony  of  the  spirit  and  word  of  life  and 
light,  in  my  own  heart  and  conscience,  and  which  has  led  me  to 
see  how  very  far  all  the  professors  of  Christianity  are  from  the 
real  spirit,  and  substance  of  the  gospel ;  and  among  other  subjects, 
T  have  been  led,  I  trust  carefully  and  candidly,  to  investigate 
the  effects  produced  by  the  book  called  the  scriptures,  since  it 
has  borne  that  appellation,  and  it  appears  from  a  comparative 
view,  to  have  been  the  cause  of  fourfold  more  harm  than  good 
to  Christendom,  since  the  apostles'  days,  and  which  I  think  must 
be  indubitably  plain  to  every  faithful  honest  mind,  that  has  in- 
vestigated her  history,  free  from  the  undue  bias  of  education, 
and  tradition." 

"To  the  family  of  Abraham  he  dispensed  a  very  peculiar 
system  of  rituals  and  outward  shadows,  to  which  he  required 
obedience,  in  order  to  bring  them  back  to  a  submission  to  his  will, 
as  manifested  by  his  spirit  in  their  hearts,  but  he  dispensed  them 


154 

to  no  other  people  but  to  Israel,  and  those  that  came  of  their 
own  accord  and  joined  them,  and  as  soon  as  the  effect  was  pro- 
duced, by  bringing  them  back  to  their  inward  guide,  all  those 
outward  means  became  obsolete,  and  useless.  So  likewise  he 
made  use  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  his  apostles,  for  the 
same  end,  to  turn  from  darkness  to  the  inward  light,  and  when 
that  was  effected,  their  ministry  had  done  all  it  could  do,  and  to 
such,  as  they  continued  to  walk  in  the  light,  their  doctrine  be- 
came obsolete  and  useless  ;  and  so  in  every  age,  where  any  real 
reformation  has  been  produced,  it  has  always  been  by  instruments 
newly  raised  up,  by  the  immediate  operation  of  the  spirit.  And 
where  any  people  have  depended  upon  what  has  been  wTitten 
to  former  generations,  such  make  no  advancement,  but  just  sit 
down  in  the  labours  of  their  forefathers,  and  soon  become  dry 
and  formal,  and  fall  behind  those  they  are  copying  after,  or 
propose  to  follow." 

"  And  how  much  more  reasonable  it  is  to  suppose,  that  an  in- 
spired teacher  in  the  present  day,  should  be  led  to  speak  more 
truly  and  plainly  to  the  states  of  the  people  to  whom  he  is  led  to 
communicate,  than  any  doctrines  that  were  delivered  seventeen 
hundred  years  ago,  to  a  people  very  differently  circumstanced 
to  those  in  this  day,  I  leave  to  any  rational  mind  to  judge.  And 
that  the  doctrines  of  George  Fox  and  our  primitive  Friends 
should  be  easier  to  understand,  and  plainer,  being  written  in  our 
own  language,  than  the  doctrines  of  the  primitive  christians,  ap- 
pears very  reasonable,  but  we  are  all  or  have  been  so  bound 
down  by  tradition,  being  taught  from  the  cradle  to  venerate  the 
scriptures,  and  people  generally  considering  them  so  sacred  as 
not  to  be  investigated,  but  bound  to  receive  them  as  we  have 
been  taught ;  hence  we  have  all  been  more  or  less  dupes  to  tra- 
dition and  error.  I  well  remember  how  oft  my  conscience  has 
smote  me  when  I  have  been  endeavouring  to  support  the  society's 
belief  of  the  scriptures,  that  they  so  very  far  excelled  all  other 
writings,  that  the  fear  of  man  had  too  great  a  share  in  leading 
me  to  adopt  the  sentiment,  and  custom  rendered  it  more  easy, 
but  I  never  was  clear  in  my  own  mind  as  to  that  point,  and  had 
I  carefully  attended  to  my  own  feelings  I  should  have  been  pre- 
served 1  believe  in  a  line  of  more  consistency,  in  that  respect." 
It  will  be  perceived  that  in  this  letter  Elias  Hicks  declares 


1 


155 

that  the  holy  scriptures  have  heen  productive  of  fourfold  more 
harm  than  good ;  that  to  those  who  turn  to  the  inward  light 
the  doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles  is  obsolete  and  useless ; 
that  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  inspired  teachers  of  the  pres- 
ent day  would  be  led  to  speak  more  truly  and  plainly  to  the 
states  of  the  people  than  any  doctrines  delivered  seventeen  hun- 
dred years  ago.  And  moreover  that  his  conscience  has  often 
smitten  him  when  he  has  been  endeavouring  to  support  the  belief 
of  the  society  of  Friends,  that  the  scriptures  so  much  excelled 
all  other  writings.  Holding  such  sentiments  as  these,  could  Elias 
Hicks,  I  would  ask,  believe  that  they  were  written  by  inspired 
men,  or  that  they  weregiven  for  our  guide  and  instruction]  He 
seems  to  have  believed  and  esteemed  them  in  his  youth,  but  when 
he  unhappily  became  a  convert  to  these  new  doctrines,  doctrines 
so  adverse  to  the  whole  testimony  of  the  bible,  then  he  rejected 
and  undervalued  them.  What  standard  of  faith  then  does  he 
leave  for  christians  ?  what  rule  for  their  guide,  what  test  for  doc- 
trines 1  What  becomes  of"  those  precious  and  consoling  hopes 
that  we  derive  from  that  sacred  volume. 

There  is  another  letter  to  Phebe  Willis,  dated  23rd  of  ninth 
month,  to  which  I  will  now  refer  the  court.  It  is  to  be  found  in 
vol.  n.  Ev.  p.  419.  In  this  letter  he  says,  "The  next  thing  I 
would  observe  is,  that  I  have  said  that  it  would  be  better  that 
they  were  entirely  annihilated,  but  this  is  not  the  case,  as  I  have 
never  said  it,  as  I  remember,  except  I  might  when  in  pleasant 
conversation  with  my  particular  friends  who  are  in  full  unity, 
and  knew  how  to  understand  me,  I  might  have  said,  that  I  did 
not  know  but  it  might  be  as  well  that  they  were  entirely  done 
away,  but  never  expressed  as  my  settled  belief,  but  I  may  add 
that  I  sometimes  think  that  if  they  are  really  needful  and  useful 
to  a  few  who  make  a  right  use  of  them,  yet  as  1  believe  they  are 
doing  great  harm  to  multitudes  of  others,  whether  it  would  not 
be  better  for  the  few  who  find  some  comfort  and  help  from  them 
to  give  them  up  for  a  time  until  the  wrong  use  and  abuse  of  them 
are  done  away,  in  the  same  manner  as  in  a  moral  relation  it 
might  be  better  for  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  if  distillation  and 
the  means  of  making  spirituous  liquors  was  for  a  time  given  up 
and  done  away,  until  the  wrong  use  and  abuse  of  it  was  done 
away  and  forgotten,  although  it  might  deprive  some  of  the  bene- 


156 

fit  of  it  who  use  those  articles  only  to  their  comfort  and  help,  for 
if  after  a  time  it  might  he  thought  right  to  renew  the  making  it, 
when  the  intemperate  use  and  abuse  was  done  away,  it  would  be 
a  very  easy  thing  for  man  to  make  it  again.  Just  so  in  respect 
to  the  scriptures,  it  would  be  a  very  easy  thing  for  divine  wisdom 
and  goodness  to  raise  up  and  qualify  some  of  his  faithful  servants 
to  write  scriptures  if  he  should  think  best,  as  good  and  as  com- 
petent for  the  generation  in  w^hich  they  lived,  and  likely  would 
be  much  better  than  those  wrote  so  many  hundred  years  since, 
for  would  not  some  of  us  be  very  glad  if  we  could  have  immedi- 
ate access  to  Paul,  and  some  other  of  the  apostles,  who  contradict 
one  another  and  sometimes  themselves,  by  which  means  we 
might  be  informed  of  the  true  meaning  of  what  they  have  wrote 
and  cause  us  all  to  understand  them  alike." 

"  I  shall  notice  one  thing  more  in  thy  letter,  that  respecting 
the  atonement ;  and  as  time  will  not  admit  me  to  write  much 
more,  I  shall  in  a  short  way  give  thee  my  view  on  the  subject : 
and  first  I  may  say,  that  our  primitive  Friends  stopt  short  in  that 
matter,  not  for  want  of  faithfulness,  but  because  the  day  that 
was  in  some  respects  still  dark,  would  not  admit  of  further  open- 
ings, because  the  people  could  not  bear  it,  therefore  it  was  to  be 
a  future  work.  But  to  suppose  in  this  day  of  advanced  light, 
that  the  offering  of  the  outward  body  of  Jesus  Christ  should 
purge  away  spiritual  corruption,  is  entirely  inconsistent  with  the 
nature  and  reason  of  things,  as  flesh  and  spirit  bear  no  analogy 
with  each  other,  and  it  likewise  contradicts  our  Lord's  own  doc- 
trines, where  he  assured  the  people  that  the  flesh  profiteth  noth- 
ing ;  and  many  other  of  his  sayings  it  contradicts.  And  I  believe 
nothing  ever  did,  or  ever  will,  atone  for  spiritual  corruption,  but 
the  entire  death  of  that  from  whence  that  corruption  originated, 
which  is  the  corrupt  will,  and  the  life  that  the  creature  has  ge- 
nerated in  him  by  that  will,  both  which  must  be  slain  by  the 
sword  of  the  Spirit,  which  stands  in  the  way  to  Eden,  and  must 
die  and  be  annihilated  on  the  cross;  and  that  is  the  true  atone- 
ment which  the  creature  cannot  effect  for  himself,  only  as  he 
submits  to  the  operation  of  the  life  and  spirit  of  Christ,  which 
will  enable  the  willing  and  obedient  to  do  it ;  and  the  outward 
atonement  was  a  figure  of  it,  which  with  the  outward  example 
of  Jesus  Christ,  in  his  righteous  works  and  pious  death,  gives 


157 

strength  to  the  faithful  to  make  this  necessary  offering  and  sa- 
crifice unto,  by  which  his  sins  is  blotted,  and  he  again  reconciled 
to  his  maker." 

It  is  apparent,  I  think,  from  the  tenor  of  this  letter,  that  Elias 
Hicks  entirely  rejected  the  holy  scriptures.  He  admits  that  he 
may  have  said  to  his  friends  that  he  did  not  know  but  it  would 
be  as  well  that  they  were  entirely  done  away,  asserts  that  they 
are  doing  great  harm  to  multitudes,  and  even  descends  to  a  de- 
grading comparison  of  them  with  spirituous  liquors  ;  he  also  holds 
out  the  idea,  that  if  they  were  entirely  destroyed,  it  is  most 
likely  if  any  scriptures  at  all  should  afterwards  be  necessary  per- 
sons would  be  qualified  to  write  such  as  would  be  much  better 
than  those  penned  so  many  hundred  years  ago.  It  would  seem 
that  he  was  vain  and  simple  enough  to  imagine  that  he  could 
write  better  scriptures  than  Peter  or  any  other  of  the  apostles. 

We  have  another  letter  addressed  to  Thomas  Willis,  dated 
tenth  month,  1821.  It  is  to  be  found  in  vol.  11.  Ev.  p.  421,  and 
contains  the  following  expressions.  "  Thine  of  the  27th  instant  I 
have  duly  considered,  and  although,  like  thyself,  I  was  brought 
up  and  educated  in  the  historical  and  traditional  belief  that  the 
conception  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  in  the  womb  of  Mary  his  mother, 
was  effected  by  the  power  of  God,  and  this  has  been  my  behef 
as  far  as  history  could  produce  a  belief,  for  more  than  fifty  years ; 
and  although  I  read  or  have  heard  the  scriptures  read,  many 
times  over,  yet  as  I  read  them,  or  heard  them  read,  under  the 
prejudice  of  a  traditional  belief,  I  never  observed  any  thing  that 
appeared  to  militate  against  it;  but  having  in  the  compass  of  a 
few  years  past,  been  led  into  an  examination  of  the  ancient  his- 
tory of  the  professed  christian  church,  wlierein  I  discovered,  that 
many  who  made  profession  of  the  christian  name,  believed  other- 
wise, and  these  at  times  stood  foremost  in  esteem." 

"  Now,  in  his  creed,  [the  Bishop  of  Rome]  to  which  he  made 
all  the  nations  of  Europe  bow,  by  the  dint  of  the  sword,  was  this  of 
the  miraculous  birth ;  therefore,  all  children,  for  several  hundred 
years,  were  brought  up  and  educated  in  this  belief,  without  any 
examination  in  regard  to  its  correctness. 

"  Finding  this  to  be  the  case,  I  examined  the  accounts  given  on 
this  subject  by  the  fwur  Evangelists,  and  according  to  my  best 
judgment  on  the  occasion,  I  was  led  to  think  there  was  consider- 


158 

able  more  scripture  evidence  for  his  being  the  son  of  Joseph  than 
otherwise ;  although  it  has  not  yet  changed  my  belief,  are  the 
consequences  which  follow  much  more  favourable ;  for  as  the 
Israelitish  covenant  rested  very  much  upon  external  evidence, 
by  way  of  outward  miracle,  so  I  conceive  this  miraculous  birth 
was  intended  principally  to  induce  the  Israelites  to  believe  he 
was  their  promised  Messiah,  or  the  great  prophet,  Moses  had 
long  before  prophesied  of  that  should  come,  like  unto  himself. 
But,  when  we  consider  that  he  was  born  of  a  woman  that  was 
joined  in  lawful  wedlock  with  a  man  of  Israel,  it  would  seem 
that  it  must  shut  the  way  to  the  enforcing  any  such  belief,  as  all 
their  neighbours  would  naturally  be  led  to  consider  him  the  son 
of  Joseph,  and  this  it  appears  very  clear  they  did,  by  the  scrip- 
ture testimony  :  and  although  it  has  not,  as  above  observed,  given 
cause  as  yet,  to  alter  my  views  on  the  subject,  as  tradition  is  a 
mighty  bulwark,  not  easily  removed,  yet  it  has  had  this  salutary 
effect,  to  deliver  me  from  judging  my  brethren  and  fellow-crea- 
tures who  are  in  that  belief,  and  can  feel  the  same  flow  of  love 
and  unity  with  them,  as  though  they  were  in  the  same  belief 
with  myself:  neither  would  I  dare  to  say  positively  that  it  would 
be  my  mind,  they  should  change  their  belief,  unless  I  could  give 
them  much  greater  evidence  than  I  am  at  present  possessed  of, 
as  I  consider  in  regard  to  our  salvation,  they  are  both  non-essen- 
tials; and  I  may  further  say,  that  I  believe  it  would  be  much 
greater  sin  in  me,  to  smoke  tobacco  that  was  the  produce  of  the 
labour  of  slaves,  than  it  would  be  to  believe  either  of  these  posi- 
tions." 

In  a  letter  to  Dr.  N.  Shoemaker,  dated  third  month  31st,  1S23, 
he  writes  thus  :  "  Thy  acceptable  letter  of  1st  month  last,  came 
duly  to  hand,  but  my  religious  engagements,  and  other  necessary 
concerns,  have  prevented  my  giving  it  that  attention  that  its  con- 
tents seem  to  demand.  Thou  queries  after  my  views  of  the  suf- 
fering of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and  what  w^as  the  object 
of  the  shedding  of  his  blood  on  the  cross,  and  what  benefits  re- 
sulted to  mankind  by  the  shedding  of  this  blood,  &c.  I  shall 
answer  in  a  very  simple  way,  as  I  consider  the  whole  subject  to 
be  a  very  simple  one,  as  all  truth  is  simple  when  we  free  our- 
selves from  the  improper  bias  of  tradition  and  education,  which 
rests  as  a  burthensome  stone  on  the  minds  of  most  of  the  children 


159 

of  men,  and  which  very  much  mars  the  unity  and  harmony  of 
society. 

"  ]st.  By  what  means  did  Jesus  suffer?  The  answer  is  plain, 
by  the  hands  of  wicked  men,  and  because  his  works  were  right- 
eous and  theirs  were  wicked.  Query.  Did  God  send  him  into 
the  world  purposely  to  suffer  death  by  the  hands  of  wicked  men  ? 
By  no  means ;  but  to  Uve  a  righteous  and  godly  hfe,  (which  was 
the  design  and  end  of  God's  creating  man  in  the  beginning,)  and 
thereby  be  a  perfect  example  to  such  of  mankind  as  should  cc-me 
to  the  knowledge  of  him  and  of  his  perfect  life." 

"  But,  1  do  not  consider  that  the  crucifixion  of  the  outward  bo- 
dy of  flesh  and  blood  of  Jesus  on  the  cross,  was  an  atonement  for 
any  sins  but  the  legal  sins  of  the  Jews ;  for  as  their  law  was  out- 
ward, so  their  legal  sins  and  their  penalties  were  outward,  and 
these  could  be  atoned  for  by  an  outward  sacrifice  ;  and  this  last 
outward  sacrifice,  was  a  full  type  of  the  inward  sacrifice  that 
every  sinner  must  make,  in  giving  up  that  sinful  life  of  his  own 
will,  in  and  by  which  he  hath  from  time  to  time,  crucified  the 
innocent  hfe  of  God  in  his  own  soul ;  and  which  Paul  calls  "  the 
old  man  with  his  deeds,"  or  "  the  man  of  sin,  and  son  of  perdi- 
tion," who  hath  taken  God's  seat  in  the  heart,  and  there  exal- 
teth  itself  above  all  that  is  called  God,  or  is  worshipped,  sitting 
as  judge  and  supreme.  Now  all  this  life,  power,  and  will  of  man, 
must  be  slain,  and  die  on  the  cross  spiritually,  as  Jesus  died  on 
the  cross  outwardly,  and  this  is  the  true  atonement,  which  that 
outward  atonement  was  a  clear  and  full  type  of." 

"Surely,  is  it  possible,  that  any  rational  being  that  has  any 
right  sense  of  justice  or  mercy,  that  would  be  willing  to  accept 
forgiveness  of  his  sins  on  such  terms!!!  V/ould  he  not  rather 
go  forward  and  offer  himself  wholly  up  to  suffer  all  the  penalties 
duejo  his  crijnes,  rather  than  the  innocent  should  suffer  ?  JVay — 
was  he  so  hardy  as  to  acknowledge  a  willingness  to  be  saved 
through  such  a  medium,  would  it  not  prove  that  he  stood  in  direct 
opposition  to  every  -principle  of  justice  and  honesty,  of  mercy  and 
love,  and  show  himself  to  be  a  poor  selfish  creature,  and  unworthy 
of  notice ! ! ! 

"  Having  given  thee  a  sketch  of  my  views  on  the  subject  of  thy 
queries,  how  far  thou  may  consider  them  correct,  I  must  leave  to 
thy  judgment  and  consideration ;  and  may  now  recommend  thee 


160 

to  shake  of  all  traditional  views  that  thou  hast  imbibed  from  ex- 
ternal evidences,  and  turn  thy  mind  to  the  light  within,  as  thy 
only  true  teacher:  wait  patiently  for  its  instruction,  and  it  will 
teach  thee  more  than  men  or  books  can  do ;  and  lead  thee  to  a 
clearer  sight  and  sense  of  what  thou  desirest  to  know,  than  I 
have  words  clearly  to  convey  it  to  thee  in." 

In  this  letter  he  not  only  expresses  the  opinion  that  the  suffer- 
ings and  death  of  Jesus  Christ  were  not  an  atonement  for  any 
sins,  but  the  legal  sins  of  the  Jews,  but  he  goes  further,  and  asks 
whether  it  is  possible  that  any  rational  being,  who  has  any  right 
sense  of  justice  or  mercy,  would  be  willing  to  accept  salvation 
or  forgiveness  of  sins,  upon  such  terms.  It  is  impossible  to  make 
use  of  stronger  terms,  in  the  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
atonement,  than  he  has  done  in  this  letter.  I  might  detain  the 
court  by  reading  numerous  passages  from  his  printed  sermons 
delivered  in  public  meetings,  within  the  limits  of  the  Philadelphia 
yearly  meeeting,  and  in  other  places,  in  which  he  promulgates 
sentiments  similar  to  those  which  I  have  already  exhibited,  but 
it  would  be  superfluous,  the  fact  of  his  holding  and  preaching 
these  doctrines  is  notorious,  and  has  been  so  for  years  past. 

We  have  then,  written  declarations,  under  the  hand  of  Elias 
Hicks,  declaring  the  doctrines  which  he  holds.  What  is  there  to 
overcome  all  this  body  of  oral  and  written  evidence,  and  induce 
us  to  believe,  that  he  held  the  doctrines  of  the  primitive  Friends, 
and  that  he  did  not  hold  the  doctrines  which  he  thus  repeatedly 
and  deliberately  declares  that  he  did  hold?  There  is  nothing  to 
contradict  all  this  evidence,  except  his  answers  to  certain  queries 
that  were  put  to  him  in  1829,  after  this  difficulty  and  schism  had 
occurred  in  the  society.  There  is  no  doubt  but  these  queries 
were  addressed  to  him  for  the  very  purpose  of  procuring  such 
answers,  as  should  induce  his  friends  to  think  that  he  did  not  go 
so  far,  as  his  former  letters  and  sermons  clearly  imply.  To  per- 
sons unaccustomed  to  his  views,  and  modes  of  expression,  it  might 
seem  that  these  answers  were  more  orthodox.  But  knowing  his 
evasive  manner  of  speaking,  and  the  contradictions  which  he 
frequently  ran  himself  into,  we  can  find  no  difficulty  in  under- 
standing his  real  meaning.  They  contain  no  clear  and  direct 
acknowledgment  of  those  doctrines,  which  he  was  so  well  known 
to  deny,  and  in  several  points  they  fully  confirm  his  denial  of 


161 

them.  One  of  these  answers  is  professedly  given  with  the  view 
of  declaring  his  behef  in  the  divinity  of  Christ.  In  the  first  part 
of  his  answer  he  says,  very  artfully,  that  no  man  had  ever  incul- 
cated that  doctrine  more  frequently  than  he  had  done.  But  he 
no  where,  in  his  answer  admits,  or  alleges  his  belief  in  the  doc- 
trine of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  as  understood  by  all  orthodox  sects. 
The  divinity  to  which  he  alludes,  is  the  divinity  of  the  spirit  that 
was  in  Christ ;  this  and  this  only,  he  considered  to  be  the  Christ. 
He  says  Jesus  was  truly  the  Son  of  God,  endued  with  power  from 
on  high,  but  he  held  this  to  be  true,  as  regarded  every  true 
christian.  He  explains  his  meaning  to  be,  that  Jesus  had  a  larger 
measure  of  this  spirit  than  other  men,  because  he  had  a  greater 
work  to  perform,  and  illustrates  it,  by  referring  to  the  parable  of 
the  servants,  one  of  whom  had  five  talents,  another  two,  and  a 
third  only  one  talent.  But  he  no  where  admits  that  in  Jesus 
Christ  dwelt  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily,  he  no  where 
ascribes  to  him  complete  and  underived  divinity. 

Giving  to  this  testimony  all  the  credit  which  the  opposite 
counsel  claim  for  it,  can  we  believe   that  it  is  entitled  to  more 
weight  than  his  repeated  public  testimonies,  in   the  character  of 
a  minister,  and  his  numerous  letters  to,  and  conversations  with 
his  brethren  ?     And  here  permit  me  to  remark,  that  Elias  Hicks 
justified  and  defended  an  evasive  policy  ;  there  is  evidence  be- 
fore this  court,  that  he  contended  for  the   propriety  of  such  a 
course.    There  is  evidence,  that  Elias  Hicks  declared  of  Fox  and 
Barclay,  that  if  they  had  honestly  spoken  out,  they  would  have 
agreed  with  him,  but  that  they  kept  silence  from  motives  of  poli- 
cy, in  which  he  justified  them,  because  the  temper  of  the  times 
would  not  bear  an  open  declaration  of  their  real  sentiments.    He 
quotes  the  saying  of  the  apostle  Paul,  that  he  became  all  things 
to  all  men,  as  a  pretext  for  dissimulation  and  falsehood.     If  then 
he  held  the  sentiments  attributed  to  him,  and  which  he  declared 
he  did  hold,  and  entertained  these  views  of  the  lawfulness  of  eva- 
sion, can  we  doubt,  but  that  in  penning  these  answers,  he  would 
use  such  language  as  would  deceive  others,  and  at  the  same  time 
satisfy  his  own  conscience.     The  evidence  of  the  unsound  doc- 
trines of  Elias  Hicks,  and  his  admission  that  they  were  diflferent 
from  the  principles  of  the  early  Friends,  is  proved  so  conclusive- 
ly, that  there  can  remain  no  doubt  respecting  them.     Neither 

X 


162 

can  there  be  any  question,  that  these  were  the  doctrines  refer- 
red to  by  the  new  society,  in  their  address  of  fourth  month,  1827, 
when  they  say,  that  "  doctrines  held  by  one  part  of  society,  and 
which  they  [the  Hicksites]  believe  to  be  sound  and  edifying,  are 
pronounced  by  the  other  part,  to  be  unsound  and  spurious."     The 
fact  is  proved  by  their  own  witnesses,  as  well  as  by  the  circum- 
stance, that  there  were  no  doctrines  in  controversy  between 
them,  but  those  of  Elias  Hicks.    The  whole  evidence  shows,  that 
his  doctrines,  and  those  of  the  new  society,  are  the  same.     They 
espoused  his  cause,  and   undertook  to  defend  him  against  the  el- 
ders, when  these  attempted  to  call  him  to  account  for  spreading 
these  doctrines,  and  from  that  opposition  to  the  elders,  and  sup- 
port of  Elias  Hicks,  all  these  difficulties  arose.     They  all  arose 
from  the  attempts  of  the  elders  to  prevent  the  spreading  of  these 
doctrines,  and  from  a  party  in  the  society  rising  up  to  defend  Elias 
Hicks  in  spreading  them.     The  leading  men  belonging  to  this 
party,  their  public  ministers,  the  particular   friends  of  Hicks, 
Lower  and  Jackson,  so  far  as  we  can  ascertain  from  the  evidence, 
hold  the  same  doctrines.     When  they  come  to  be  examined, 
they  refuse  to  answer,  because  they  know  that  they  could  not 
disclose  their  doctrines,  without  shewing  a  departure  from  the 
doctrines  of  Friends,  and  their  unity  with  Hicks.  I  repeat  again, 
there  were  no  other  doctrines  than  those  of  Elias  Hicks  in  contro- 
versy ;  there  were  none  other  but  his  about  which  the   dispute 
could  hove  arisen,  because  no  other  were  controverted.     When 
therefore  we  ascertain  what  the  doctrines  of  Hicks  are,  we  show 
the  doctrines  respecting  which  all  the  controversy,  and^difficulty, 
and  schism  arose. 

But  we  do  not  rest  here.  After  all  this  separation  had  occurred, 
after  the  controversy  respecting  the  sentiments  of  Hicks  had 
existed  for  years,  and  his  sermons  containing  them  had  been 
preached  and  published,  and  extensively  circulated;  and  this 
"  Hicksite"  party  gave  him  certificates  of  their  unity  with  him, 
did  they  not  thereby  adopt  his  doctrines  ?  We  find  from  the 
evidence,  that  Hicks  attended  the  new  yearly  meeting  in  Green 
street  in  the  year  1828,  after  the  separation,  and  that  that 
meeting  then  gave  him  a  certificate  of  unity  and  acceptance 
with  them.  Was  not  this  a  clear  and  full  admission  that  they 
adopted  and  approved  his  doctrines  ?     I  refer  for  proof  of  these 


163 

facts  to  the  testimony  of  Abraham  Lower,  vol.  I.  Ev.  p.  4G8,  and 
of  Halliday  Jackson,  vol.  IT.  £v.  p.  167.  After  an  examination 
of  the  evidence  in  this  cause,  it  cannot  be  pretended  by  any  man, 
that  this  unhappy  breach  arose  about  discipline  ;  the  whole 
difficulty  proceeded  from  the  controversy  about  the  doctrines  of 
Elias  Hicks.  The  alleged  violations  of  the  discipline  were  the  ef- 
fects not  the  causes  of  the  controversy.  Hicks  himself  well  knew, 
and  he  admitted,  that  his  doctrines  were  not  the  same  as  those  of 
the  original  Friends,  of  Fox  and  of  Barclay. 

But  can  we  have  a  douht  of  the  fact,  when  we  see  the  same 
schism  occurring  on  the  same  grounds  in  other  places.     In  New 
York  as  in  Philadelphia,  it   was  a  dissention  about  doctrines. 
The  separation  in  Philadelphia  took  place  before  that  in  New 
York.     That   in   New  York   occurred  in   the    following   year. 
Elias  Hicks  was  there.     We  tind  that  a  scene  of  tumult  and 
confusion  attended  it,  which  could  not  be  surpassed  by  a  town 
meeting;  Hicks  calling  out  and  encouraging  his  adherents,  tell- 
ing them  not  to  let  the  clerk  proceed.     His  name  is  not  peculiar 
to  the  party  in  this  state  or  in  Pennsylvania,  but  attaches  to 
them  wherever  the  separation  has  taken  place.     In  Ohio  and 
Indiana  the  same  state  of  things  exists,  there  they  are  greatly  in 
the  minority.  Here  they  allege  they  are  a  majority,  but  that  is  a 
matter  of  doubt  as  appears  from  the  evidence  ;  their  majority  is 
not  proved.     The  same  separation  having  taken  place  in  New 
York,  Philadelphia,  Ohio  and  Indiana,  and  Hicks  being  in  concert 
and  union  with  the  seceding  party  in  all  these  places,  the  con- 
clusion is  irresistible,  that  the  same  ground  of  separation  exists  in 
all,  and  that  this  ground  is  the  doctrines  which  he  promulgated. 
I  think  therefore   the  court  can   have  no  difficulty  in  deciding 
that  the  schism  arose  about  religious  doctrines,  and  about  the 
doctrines  inculcated  by  him. 

I  have  now  gone  through  the  evidence  on  this  head,  as  fully 
as  is  necessary  to  place  this  case  in  its  true  light.  I  have  omit- 
ted many  topics  which  might  have  been  introduced,  but  I  have 
no  doubt  that  this  cause  will  be  fully  and  carefully  examined  by 
your  honours,  and  that  the  investigation  which  you  will  give  it, 
"will  more  than  supply  any  deficiency  of  mine.  It  only  remains 
to  enquire,  what  is  the  law  on  the  subject  before  the  court,  if  I 
have  succeeded  in  establishing  the  propositions  which  I  have 


1G4 

endeavoured  to  maintain.     The  principles  of  law  applicable  to 
this  cause  have  been  so  long  and  clearly  settled,  that  there  can 
be  but  little  question  about  them  now.     Whenever  a  schism 
takes  place,  and  a  separation  follows,  the  party  seceding  can 
have  no  claim  to  the  property,  as  against  the  congregation  from 
which  they  separate.     Whenever  they  cease  to  be  members  of 
the   society,  they  cease  to  have  any  right  to  control  its  proper- 
ty.    The  property  is  held  for  the  benefit  of  the  society,  and  if 
Ihey  separated  and  withdrew,  even  if  there  is  no  dispute  upon 
doctrines,  there  is  no  principle  upon  which  they  could  take  the 
property  with  them.     The  gentlemen  on  the  opposite  side  con- 
tend, that  there  must  be  a  dissension  on  the  ground  of  religious 
faith,  or   else    the  party    seceding  would  have  a  right  to  the 
property  in  case  they  were  a  majority.     But  if  they  withdraw 
and  establish  a  new  society,  whether  doctrines  are  the  ground 
of  dispute  and  withdrawal  or  not,  they  cease  to  be  members  of 
the  original  society,  and  they  cease  to  have  any  claim  to  the 
property  when  they  cease  to  be  members,  their   claim  being 
merely  as  members,  not  as  individuals.     The  cases  in  the  books 
clearly  support  this  position.     This  is  the  principle  of  the  de- 
cision   in    5    Mass.  Rep.  554.     Wherever  a  new  township,  or 
corporation,  or  new  parish  is  erected  out  of  an  old  one,  the  new 
can  have  no  claim  to  the  property  of  the  old  one.     The  same 
principle  is  recognized  in  8  Mass.  Rep.  96.    4  lb.  389.  7  Ibid. 
435.     All  these  decisions  go  upon  the  principle  of  a  separation, 
not  upon  the  ground  of  religious  doctrine.     If  therefore  this  new 
society  have  separated  from  us  ;  if  they  have  withdrawn  ;  if  they 
cannot  show  that  the  original  meeting  was  dissolved,  they  can 
have  no  claim  to  the  property.     The  yearly,  quarterly,  monthly, 
and  preparative  meetings,  all  stand  upon  the  same  footing  in  this 
respect.   If  they  have  separated  from  their  brethren  and  gone  over 
to  a  new  head,  they  can  have  no  claim  to  any  part  of  this  property. 
And  the  decisions  of  the  court  of  chancery  in  respect  to  trust  pro- 
perty, are  all  upon  the  same  principles.     A  property  held  in  trust 
for  a  religious  community,  must  be  held  in  trust  for  that  commu- 
nity, and  for  promoting  those  doctrines  that  the  community  held 
at  the  time  the  trust  was  created.     If  part  of  them  change  their 
doctrines,  whether  the  majority  or  the  minority,  it  is  impossible 
that  they  can  take  the  property  belonging  to  the  society  with 


165 

them.  If  part  of  an  Episcopal  church  join  a  Presbyterian  church, 
they  cannot  carry  any  part  of  the  property  with  them  ;  they 
cannot  require  the  others  to  change  their  opinions.  If  a  change 
of  doctrines  takes  place  in  all  the  members  of  a  society,  there 
may  be  more  difficulty  about  it.  Lord  Eldon,  however,  seemed 
to  think,  that  even  then  the  property  could  not  be  used  to  sup- 
port a  different  doctrine  from  that  held  at  the  time  it  was  given. 
But  where  there  is  a  majority  merely  who  change,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  according  to  the  principle  of  trusts,  it  must  be  considered 
as  held  solely  for  the  benefit  of  the  congregation  who  remain,  and 
for  those  principles  for  which  it  was  originally  intended.  In  2 
Jacob  &  Walker,  245,  this  principle  is  fully  recognized,  that 
the  property  must  be  considered  as  held  for  the  benefit  of  that 
community,  and  of  those  doctrines,  which  existed  at  the  time  the 
trust  was  created.  The  same  doctrine  is  recognized  in  Merivale, 
353.  The  trust  in  that  case  was  a  very  general  one.  It  was 
expressed  to  be  for  the  benefit  of  a  congregation  worshi]»ping 
Almighty  God.  A  reference  was  there  made  to  a  master,  to 
ascertain  the  doctrines  of  the  society  at  the  time  of  the  creation 
of  the  trust.  It  was  there  held,  that  if  they  were  then  trinita- 
rians,  and  those  who  now  held  it  were  unitarians,  it  could  not 
be  held  by  them ;  but  must  be  held  for  the  benefit  of  those  for 
whom  the  trust  was  originally  created. 

The  case  in  Dow,  and  in  2  Bligh,  529,  contains  the  same  prin- 
ciple, and  goes  also  to  establish  theother  principle,  that  if  a  divi- 
sion takes  place  in  a  congregation,  and  a  part  separate  from  the 
original  head,  and  go  to  a  new  one,  and  a  part  do  not,  whether 
doctrines  form  the  ground  of  separation  or  not,  the  part  which 
go  over  to  the  new  head  lose  their  rights.  If  the  superior  church- 
es change  their  doctrine,  the  subordinate  ones  are  not  bound  to 
change  theirs.  If  a  part  of  the  head  changes  its  doctrines,  and  a 
part  of  the  subordinate  branches  change  theirs  also,  then  those 
who  separate  and  form  a  new  head,  will  lose  their  right  to  the 
property ;  but  if  there  is  no  dispute  about  doctrine,  those  who 
separate  from  the  head  will  be  considered  as  seceders,  and  will 
lose  the  benefit  of  the  property.  If  the  whole  head  changes  its 
religious  principles,  the  society  which  separates  from  it,  and  ad- 
heres to  the  religious  principles  of  the  society,  will  not  lose  their 
rights.     These  decisions  are  all  in  conformity  to,  and  all  go  upon 


166 

the  same  principle.  The  principle  of  majority  has  never  been 
made  tiie  ground  of  decision  in  the  case  of  a  schism  in  a  congrega- 
tion or  religious  society.  Such  a  principle  is  not  to  be  found  in  our 
law  books  or  systems  of  equity.  Upon  what  principle  can  the 
majority  claim  the  property,  if  they  absolve  themselves  from  the 
head  of  their  church,  and  voluntarily  withdraw  ?  They  cannot 
take  away  the  right  of  property  from  those  who  adhere  to  the  so- 
ciety to  which  they  originally  belonged.  If  they  hold  in  their  indi- 
vidual capacity,  each  will  receive  an  individual  portion  according 
to  his  right.  If  they  hold  as  members,  they  can  control  the  prop- 
erty no  longer  than  they  continue  in  membership  ;  the  right 
cannot  be  affected  by  a  change  of  trustees. 

These  principles  as  laid  down  in  Dow  and  Bligh,  are  highly 
important,  and  will  govern  the  court  in  this  case. 

It  would  be  strange  indeed,  if  property  belonging  to  a  religious 
community,  was  to  be  divided  every  time  a  schism  takes  place ; 
this  would  be  a  great  encouragement  to  schismatics.  There  can 
be  but  one  uniform  principle.  When  a  division  takes  place  by 
consent  of  parties,  they  may  divide  the  general  property,  but  the 
court  will  never  suffer  property  held  in  trust  for  a  particular 
charity  to  be  divided,  and  a  part  diverted  to  another  object. 
The  idea  of  the  gentlemen  opposed  to  us  was,  that  if  the  trust 
was  explicitly  declared  in  the  deed  of  trust,  the  court  must  be 
governed  by  it,  and  if  not  so  expressed,  the  majority  must  govern. 
In  reply,  I  refer  to  the  case  in  3  Merivale,  and  the  one  in  Bligh. 
There  the  most  general  terms  were  used  in  the  creation  of  the 
trust,  and  yet  the  court  held  that  they  must  look  back,  and  if 
they  could  discover  the  original  intention  of  the  trust,  they  would 
be  governed  by  it.  The  cases  I  have  quoted  furnish  full  an- 
swers to  all  the  distinctions  attempted  to  be  raised  by  the  oppo- 
site counsel.  It  v^'ill  be  found  that  his  positions  are  all  unten- 
able, and  that  there  is  but  one  uniform  principle  running  through 
and  governing  all  the  decisions  of  the  courts.  This  question  is 
highly  important,  not  only  to  the  society  of  Friends,  but  to  every 
religious  community;  what  is  the  law  in  regard  to  one,  must  also 
be  as  respects  all ;  we  are  now  to  know  whether  the  principle 
is  to  be  sanctioned,  that  a  majority  is  to  prevail  over  a  minority, 
and  to  divest  them  of  their  rights.  The  decision  of  this  cause 
then  is  a  subject  of  great  interest  and  importance  to  every  reli- 


167 

gious  community,  and  at  the  hands  of  this  court  it  doubtless  will 
receive  that  careful  and  deliberate  consideration  which  its  mag- 
nitude demands. 

With  these  considerations,  1  submit  the  case  to  the  court,  not 
doubting  but  a  decision  will  be  made  that  shall  promote  the 
interests  both  of  the  society  of  Friends,  and  the  community  at 
large.  It  is  highly  desirable  that  this  question  should  be  settled 
on  its  real  merits;  no  technical  objections  have  been  raised,  and 
great  pains  have  been  taken  to  ascertain  the  true  character  and 
rights  of  the  respective  parties.  They  are  placed  in  an  unhap- 
py situation,  and  the  question  must,  sooner  or  later,  be  deter- 
mined. The  sooner  it  is  done  the  better  it  will  be  for  all  parties ; 
and  we  trust  such  a  decision  will  be  given,  as  shall  put  the 
matter  entirely  at  rest. 


■i 


i 


THE    DECISION. 


CHAIVCERY  OF  XEW  JERSEY. 

BETWEEN 

Joseph  Hendrickson,  complainant,  "^ 

and  I    On  bill  for  relief, 

Thomas  L.  Shotwell  and  Elizabeth  j  &c. 

his  wife,  defendants.  J 
AND  BETWEEN 

Thomas  L.  Shotwell,  complainant,  '\        ^    ,■■,^    r 

Joseph  Hendrickson  and  Stacy  De-    jo      "  ' 

cow,  defendants,  J 

On  the  10th  July,  1832,  Chief  Justice  Ewing  and  Justice  Drake 
came  into  court,  and  delivered  their  opinions  in  this  cause. 
Opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Ewing. 

Joseph  Hendrickson  exhibited  a  bill  of  complaint  in  this  court, 
stating  that  on  the  second  day  of  April,  one  thousand  eight  hun- 
dred and  twenty-one,  being  the  Treasurer  of  the  School  Fund  of 
the  Preparative  Meeting  of  the  Society  of  Friends  of  Chesterfield, 
in  the  county  of  Burlington,  he  loaned  the  sum  of  two  thousand 
dollars,  part  of  that'  fund,  to  Thomas  L.  Shotwell,  who  thereupon 
made  a  bond  to  him,  by  the  name  and  description  of  Joseph  Hen- 
drickson, Treasurer  of  the  School  Fund  of  Crosswicks  Meeting, 
conditioned  for  the  payment  of  the  said  sum,  with  interest,  to  him, 
treasurer  as  aforesaid,  or  his  successor,  on  the  second  day  of 
April,  then  next  ensuing,  and  also  a  mortgage  of  the  same  date, 
by  the  like  name  and  description,  on  certain  real  estate,  with  a 
condition  of  redemption,  on  payment  of  the  said  sum  of  money, 
with  interest,  to  the  said  Joseph  Hendrickson,  or  his  successor, 
treasurer  of  the  school  fund,  according  to  the  condition  of  the 
aforesaid  bond.  He  farther  states,  that  Thomas  L.  Shotwell,  refu- 
ses to  pay  the  money  to  him,  being  treasurer  as  aforesaid,  on  divers 
unfounded  and  erroneous  pretensions ;  and  he  seeks  relief  in  this 
court  by  a  decree  for  the  foreclosure  of  the  mortgage,  or  for  a 


sale  of  the  mortgaged  premises,  and  an  appropriation  of  the  pro- 
ceeds to  the  payment  of  the  debt. 

Sometime  after  the  exhibition  of  this  bill,  Thomas  L.  Shotwell 
filed  here  a  bill  of  interpleader,  wherein  Joseph  Hendrickson  and 
Stacy  Decow  are  made  defendants ;  in  which  he  admits  the  above 
mentioned  bond  and  mortgage,  and  the  source  from  which  ema- 
nated the  money  thereby  intended  to  be  secured,  the  school  fund 
of  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting.  He  admits  also,  the  lia- 
bility of  himself  and  the  real  estate  described  in  the  mortgage,  and 
avows  his  readiness  and  willingness  to  pay  whatever  is  due.  But 
he  says  Stacy  Decow  has  warned  him  not  to  pay  to  Joseph  Hen- 
drickson, alleging  that  Hendrickson  is  no  longer  treasurer  of  the 
fund,  and  has  therefore  no  right  to  receive ;  and  that  he  is  the 
treasurer  and  successor  of  Hendrickson,  and  as  such  claims  the 
money  mentioned  in  the  bond  and  mortgage.  Seeking,  then,  the 
protection  of  this  coUrt,  and  offering,  on  being  indemnified  by  its 
power,  to  pay  to  whomsoever  the  right  belongs,  he  prays  that  Jo- 
seph Hendrickson  and  Stacy  Decow  may,  according  to  the  course 
and  practice  of  this  court,  interplead,  and  adjust  between  them- 
selves their  respective  claims. 

Joseph  Hendi'ickson  answered  this  bill ;  and  insists,  as  in  his 
original  bill,  that  he  is,  as  he  was  when  the  bond  and  mortgage 
were  executed,  the  treasurer  of  the  school  fund  of  the  Chester- 
field preparative  meeting  of  Friends  at  Crosswicks,  and  is  entitled 
to  the  bond  and  mortgage,  and  to  receive  the  money  due  thereon, 

Stacy  Decow  has  also  answered  the  bill  of  interpleader.  He 
admits  the  loan  of  the  money,  part  of  the  school  fund,  to  Shotwell, 
and  the  due  execution  and  delivery,  and  the  validity  of  the  bond 
and  mortgage,  and  that  when  they  were  made,  Joseph  Hendrick- 
son was  the  treasurer  of  the  school  fund,  duly  appointed  by  the 
Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  at  Crosswicks;  in  whom,  as  all 
the  parties  in  this  cause  admit,  was  vested  the  right  of  appointing 
the  treasurer  of  the  fund.  But  he  says  that  before  the  filing  of 
the  original  bill  by  Joseph  Hendrickson,  and  "  on  the  thirty-first 
day  of  the  first  month,  1828,  at  a  lawful  meeting  of  tlie  said  Ches- 
terfield preparative  meeting  of  Friends,  held  at  the  usual  time  and 
place  of  meeting  at  Crosswicks,  he  was  appointed,  in  due  and  law- 
ful manner,  treasurer  of  the  said  school  fund,  to  succeed  the  said 
Joseph  Hendrickson ;  and  as  such  successor,  became  entitled  to 


all  the  books,  obligations  and  other  papers,  which  he  had  in  his 
possession,  and  also  to  the  funds  then  in  his  hands,  and  more  par- 
ticularly to  the  bond  and  mortgage  in  the  original  bill  and  bill  of 
interpleader  mentioned,  and  the  money  due  thereon  ;  and  the  said 
Joseph  Hendrickson  ceased  to  have  any  right,  title  or  claim  there- 
to." He  farther  insists  "  that  he  always  has  continued  since  his 
appointment,  and  is  the  lawful  treasurer  of  the  said  school  fund, 
and  as  the  successor  of  the  said  Joseph  Hendrickson  is  lawfully 
entitled  to  have  and  receive  all  such  bonds,  obligations  and  mort- 
gages, and  the  money  due  thereon,  as  had  been  taken  for  the  loan 
of  any  part  of  the  said  fund  in  his  name  as  treasurer  of  the  said 
school  fund,  or  payable  to  him,  as  such  treasurer,  or  his  successor." 

This  brief  view  of  the  pleadings  is  here  presented,  in  order  dis- 
tinctly to  exhibit,  in  a  clear  and  naked  manner,  divested  of  auxilia- 
ry and  explanatory  matters,  and  especially  of  forensic  forms,  the 
grounds  of  the  respective  claims  of  the  interpleading  parties.  And 
hence,  we  may  discern,  the  great  outlines  of  the  enquiries  which 
an  investigation  of  this  cause  will  lead  us  to  make.  For  accord- 
ing to  these  pretensions,  and  to  these  alone,  thus  set  forth  in  the 
pleadings,  as  they  are  respectively  supported  or  subdued  by  the 
proofs,  the  decree  of  this  tribunal  must  be  made,  whatever  other 
points  favorable  or  unfavorable  to  either  party  may  become  mani- 
fest by  the  evidence. 

Joseph  Hendrickson  claims  the  money,  because  originally  made 
payable  to  him,  and  because  he  is,  as  he  then  was,  the  treasurer 
of  the  fund. 

Stacy  Decow  claims  the  money,  because  payable  by  the  terms 
of  the  bond  to  the  successor  of  Joseph  Hendrickson  in  that  office, 
and  because  he  became,  and  is  such  successor,  and  the  present 
treasurer. 

A  slight  sketch  of  the  history  of  the  estabHshment  and  organi- 
zation of  the  Crosswiclis  school,  and  of  the  fund,  may  be  interest- 
ing, and  will,  perhaps,  shed  light  on  some  step  in  the  progress  of 
our  investigations. 

The  education  of  youth  and  the  establishment  of  schools,  attrac- 
ted the  care  and  attention,  and  brought  out  the  exertions,  of  the 
yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia,  at  an  early  day.  Most  earnest  and 
pressing  recommendations  of  these  interesting  duties,  to  the  consid- 
eration and  notice  of  the  society  were  repeatedly  made;  and  to 


6 

render  these  more  effectual,  committees  were  appointed  to  attend 
and  assist  the  quarterly  meetings.  In  the  year  1778,  the  yearly 
meeting  adopted  the  report  of  a  committee  "  that  it  be  recom- 
mended to  the  quarterly,  and  from  thein  to  the  monthly  and  pre- 
parative meetings,  that  the  former  advice,  for  the  collecting  a 
fund  for  the  establishment  and  support  of  schools,  under  the  care 
of  a  standing  committee,  appointed  by  the  several  monthly  or  par- 
ticular meetings,  should  generally  take  place,  and  that  it  be  re- 
commended by  the  yearly  meeting,  to  friends  of  each  quarter,  to 
send  up  the  next  year,  an  account  of  what  they  have  done  here- 
in." And  the  report  suggests  the  propriety  of  "a  subscription 
towards  a  fund,  the  increase  of  which  might  be  employed  in  pay- 
ing the  master's  salary,  and  promoting  the  education  of  the  poor- 
er Friends'  children."    2  vol.  Evid.  387. 

The  quarterly  meeting  of  Burlington  appear-to  have  faithfully 
striven  to  promote  the  wise  views  and  benevolent  purposes  of  the 
yearly  meeting.  In  1777,  and  1778,  appropriate  measures  were 
adopted,  2  vol.  Evid.  436.  In  1783,  the  subject  was  "  afresh 
recommended  to  the  due  attention  of  their  monthly  and  prepara- 
tive meetings,  and  to  oroduce  renewed  exertion,"  a  committee 
previously  appointed,  was  discharged,  and  a  new  one  raised ;  and 
"  it  is  desired,"  says  the  minute,  "  that  accounts  of  our  progress 
herein,  may  be  brought  forward  timely,  to  go  from  this  to  the  en- 
suing yearly  meeting."    2  vol.  Evid.  436. 

Within  the  bounds  of  the  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting,  al- 
though a  committee  had  been  for  some  time  charged  with  the  sub- 
ject, there  appears  no  practical  result,  until  after  the  meeting  in 
April,  1788,  when  a  new  committee  was  appointed,  "to  endeavor 
to  promote  the  establishing  of  schools,  agreeably  to  the  directions 
of  the  yearly  meeting."  2  vol  Evid.  349.  In  August,  1780,  the 
committee  reported,  that  they  had  agreed  on  a  place  to  build  a 
school-house,  and  had  obtained  subscriptions  to  a  considerable 
amount,  and  had  agreed  "  to  lay  the  same  before  the  montlily 
meeting  for  their  approbation."  The  minute  of  the  meeting  ap- 
proves, "  and  empowers  them  to  proceed."  2  vol.  Evid.  349.  To 
the  monthly  meeting  of  August,  1791,  "The  committee  ap- 
pointed for  the  establishment  of  schools,  agreeabl}^  to  the  direc- 
tion of  the  yearly  meeting,  reported,  there  is  a  house  at  Cliester- 
field,  so  far  finished,  that  a  school  might  be  kept  in  it,  but  it  is  not 


yet  occupied  for  that  purpose ;  neither  is  there  any  such  school 
within  this  monthly  meeting."  The  clerk  was  directed  "  to  send 
up"  this  report  "  to  the  ensuing  quarterly  meeting."  2  vol  Evid. 
349.  No  other  action  on  it  took  place  by  the  monthly  meeting, 
until  December,  1791,  when  they  recommended  to  the  prepara- 
tive meeting  of  Chestertield,  "  and  they  are  hereby  authorized," 
says  the  entry  on  the  minutes,  "  to  open  a  school  in  the  said  house, 
and  appoint  a  suitable  number  of  Friends,  as  trustees,  to  take  the 
care  and  oversight  thereof,  and  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for 
the  government  and  promotion  of  the  institution ;  which  rules  and 
regulations  shall  always  bo  inspected  by  the  monthly  meeting 
committee,  for  their  approbation  or  disallowance;  and  said  meet- 
ing are  likewise  authorised  to  appoint  a  treasurer,  to  receive  sub- 
scriptions and  donations,  for  accumulating  a  fund."  2  vol.  Evid. 
349,  exhih.  51. 

The  fruit  of  these  discreet  and  vigorous  measures  soon  appear- 
ed. The  house  built,  provision  made  for  trustees  and  a  treasu- 
rer, and  the  accumulation  of  a  fund  thus  earnestly  resolved,  a 
subscription  was  opened,  and  numerous  and  generous  donations 
were  obtained.  The  original  instrument  of  writing  has  been  pro- 
duced before  us.  It  is  an  interesting  record  of  liberality.  The 
subscribers  describe  themselves  to  be  "  members  of  the  prepara- 
tive meeting  of  the  people  called  Quakers,  at  Crosswicks."  They 
engage  to  make  the  payments  to  the  "  treasurer  of  the  school  at 
Crosswicks,  begun  and  set  up  under  the  care  of  the  preparative 
meeting."  And  the  purpose  is  thus  declared.  "  The  principal 
whereof,  so  subscribed,  is  to  be  and  remain  a  permanent  fund, 
under  the  direction  of  the  trustees  of  the  said  school,  now  or 
hereafter  to  be  chosen  by  the  said  preparative  meeting,  and  by 
them  laid  out  or  lent  on  interest,  in  such  manner  as  they  shall 
judge  will  best  secure  an  interest  or  annuity,  which  interest  or 
annuity  is  to  be  applied  to  the  education  of  such  children  as  now 
do,  or  hereafter  shall,  belong  to  the  same  preparative  meeting, 
whose  parents  are,  or  shall  not  be,  of  ability  to  pay  for  their  edu- 
cation."   Exhih.  1,  2  vol.  Evid.  411. 

This  subscription  was  the  basis  of  the  school  fund.  Accessions 
to  it  were  afterwards  made,  by  other  individuals  of  the  society; 
and  the  quarterly  meeting  of  Burlington,  who  held  and  owned  a 
stock,  composed  of  donations,  bequests,  and  the  proceeds  of  the 


8 

sale  of  some  meeting  houses,  resolved,  in  1792,  to  divide  a  portion 
of  it  among  the  monthly  meetings,  "  for  the  promotion  of  schools, 
answerable  to  the  recommendation  of  the  yearly  meeting,  by  es- 
tablishing permanent  funds  within  such  of  the  meetings  where 
none  have  been  heretofore,  or  in  addition  to  such  as  are  alrea- 
dy established."  2  vol.  Evid.  437,  exhib.  32.  The  share  of 
Chesterfield  monthly  meeting  having  been  received,  was  subdivi- 
ded, and  a  part  of  it  paid  over  to  the  treasurer  of  the  school  fund 
of  the  preparative  meeting  of  Chesterfield,  "  to  be  applied  to  the 
use  directed  by  the  minute  of  the  quarterly  meeting."  2  vol. 
Evid.  347,  exhib.  51.  In  1802,  a  farther  sum,  arising  from  the 
sale  of  "  an  old  meeting  house,"  was  paid  to  the  treasurer,  by  the 
monthly  meeting,  to  be  appropriated  in  the  same  manner.  Ex- 
hib. 02,  2  vol.  Evid.  347. 

In  this  way,  and  by  discreet  and  prudent  management,  a  fund 
was  accumulated,  a  school  house  erected,  and,  as  we  learn  from 
one  of  the  witnesses,  "  Friends,  for  many  years,  generally  had  a 
school  kept  therein,  under  their  superintendence,  and  frequently 
appropriated  a  part  of  the  proceeds  towards  paying  the  teacher's 
salary,  and  for  the  education  of  children  contemplated  in  the  ori- 
ginal establishment  of  the  fund."  Samuel  Craft,  2  vol.  Evid. 
350. 

A  part  of  this  fund,  as  we  have  already  seen,  was  loaned  to 
Thomas  L.  Shotwell,  and  is  the  subject  of  the  present  controversy. 

For  the  direction  of  the  school,  and  for  the  care,  preservation, 
and  management  of  the  fund,  provision,  as  has  been  shewn,  was 
made,  as  well  by  the  terms  of  the  subscription,  as  by  the  resolu- 
tion of  the  monthly  meeting.  The  oflicers,*  were  accordingly  ap- 
pointed by  the  preparative  meeting,  from  time  to  time,  as  occasion 
required.  The  trustees  were  usually  chosen  in  the  first  month  of 
every  year.  2  vol.  Evid.  287.  No  fixed  term  of  office  appears 
to  have  been  assigned  to  the  treasurer ;  so  that  the  incumbent  re- 
mained until  removed  by  death,  resignation,  or  the  will  of  the  ap- 
pointing body.  The  person  who  held  that  station  when  the  sub- 
scription was  made,  continued  there  until  1812,  when  another 
Friend  succeeded  him,  and  remained  in  office  until  Joseph  Hen- 
drickson  was  duly  appointed,  in  1816. 

The  facts  thus  far  presented  are  not,  and  from  the  jileadings 
and  evidence  in  the  cause,  cannot  be,  the  subject  of  dispute.  There 


are  some  positions,  deducible  from  tliem,  which  are  equally  clear 
and  incontrovertible. 

First.  The  money  mentioned  in  the  bond  being  payable  to 
Joseph  Hendrickson,  as  treasurer,  he  has  an  indisputable  right  to 
claim  and  receive  it,  if  he  remains  in  that  office. 

Second.  Inasmuch  as  he  was  duly  appointed,  which  is  une- 
quivocally admitted  by  the  pleadings,  and  inasmuch  as  the  term 
of  office  of  treasurer  does  not  cease  by  efflux  of  time  or  by  pre- 
vious limitation,  the  legal  presumption  is  that  he  remains  in  office 
until  competent  evidence  of  his  due  removal  is  given. 

Third.  Such  being  the  case,  Joseph  Hendrickson  is  not  re- 
quired to  produce  farther  evidence  of  his  right  to  receive  the  mo- 
ney, or  of  his  continuance  in  office,  or  that  he  has  been  retained 
there  by  the  competent  authority  ;  but  whoever  denies  that  right, 
or  seeks  to  sustain  any  claim  on  the  ground  that  he  has  ceased 
to  be  treasurer,  ought  to  establish  the  ground  by  lawful  and  suffi- 
cient proof. 

Fourth.  Inasmuch  as  Stacy  Decow  alleges  that  Joseph  Hen- 
drickson was  removed  from  office,  and  that  he  was  appointed  his 
successor  and  treasurer  of  the  school  fund,  (and  upon  this  remo- 
val and  appointment,  he  rests,  in  his  answer,  for  the  entire  sup- 
port of  his  claim,)  it  is  incumbent  on  him  to  establish  the  fact  and 
legahty  of  this  removal  and  appointment. 

The  power  of  appointment  and  removal,  as  the  litigating  par- 
ties unqualifiedly  admit,  is  vested  in  the  Chesterfield  preparative 
meeting  at  Crosswicks,  meant  and  mentioned  in  the  original  sub- 
scription paper  or  agreement  of  the  donors;  which  is  distinguish- 
ed as  Exhibit  No.  1,  and  which  I  have  already  referred  to  as  the 
basis  of  the  school  fund.  The  parties  also  admit,  or  rather,  in- 
sist, in  their  pleadings,  by  their  evidence,  and  in  the  arguments  of 
their  counsel,  that  the  preparative  meeting  is  one  and  undivided; 
or  in  other  words,  that  there  is  and  can  be  but  one  body  entitled 
to  be  called  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting,  to  exercise  its 
power  and  authority,  and  especially,  the  prerogativ^e  of  removal 
and  appointment.  It  farther  appears  from  the  evidence,  that  a  body 
calling  themselves,  and  claiming  to  be.  the  Chesterfield  preparative 
meeting  of  Friends  at  Crosswicks,  did  on  the  thirty-first  day  of  Jan- 
uary 1828,  adopt  a  resolution  and  enter  it  on  their  minutes,  to 
the  following  effect :  "■  This  meeting  being  now  informed  by  the 

B 


10 

trustees  who  have  the  hnmediate  care  and  trust  of  the  school  fund 
belonging  to  this  meeting,  that  the  person  who  w^as  sometime  since 
appointed  treasurer  thereof,  refuses  to  settle  the  account  of  the  said 
fund  with  them,  this  meeting,  therefore,  now  think  it  best  to  ap- 
point a  Friend  to  succeed  him  as  treasurer  of  the  said  fund,  and 
Stacy  Decow  being  now  named  to  that  service  and  united  with 
by  this  meeting,  is  appointed  accordingly." 

We  are  now  brought  to  the  issue  between  these  parties,  and 
are  enabled  to  propound  for  solution,  the  question  on  wdiich  their 
respective  claims  depend ;  was  this  body  the  Chesterfield  prepara- 
tive meeting  of  Friends  at  Crosswicks,  meant  and  mentioned  in 
the  estabHshment  of  the  school  fund  ?  If  it  was,  Stacy  Decow 
is  the  successor  and  ti*easurer.  If  not,  Joseph  Hendrickson  re- 
mains in  office,  and  is  entitled  to  the  money. 

The  meetings  in  the  society  of  Fiiends  are  of  two  kinds,  for  wor- 
ship, and  for  discipline,  as  they  are  sometimes  called,  or  in  other 
words,  for  business.  This  distinction  is  sufficiently  correct  and 
precise  for  our  present  purposes,  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  pause 
to  consider  of  the  suggestion,  I  have  read  somewhere  in  the  tes- 
timony or  documents  in  the  cause,  or  perhaps,  heard  from  the 
counsel  in  argument,  that  every  meeting  for  discipline,  is  in  truth 
a  meeting  for  worship,  since  he  who  cordially  and  faithfully  per- 
forms any  ecclesiastical  duty,  does  thereby  pay  an  act  of  adora- 
tion to  the  Almighty. 

The  meetings  for  business  are  four  in  number,  marked  and  dis- 
tinguished by  peculiar  and  characteristic  differences ;  preparative, 
monthly,  quarterly  and  yearly.  These  are  connected  together, 
and  rise  in  gradation  and  rank  in  the  order  of  their  enumeration. 
Each  yearly  meeting  comprehends  several  quarterly  meetings ; 
each  quarterly  meeting  several  monthly  meetings ;  and  every 
monthly  meeting  embraces  several  of  the  lowest  order,  prepara- 
tive meetings.  The  preparative  meeting  is  connected  with, 
and  subordinate  to,  some  monthly  meeting;  the  monthly  meet- 
ing, to  some  quarterly  meeting;  the  quarterly  meeting,  to  its 
appropriate  yearly  meeting.  The  connection  and  subordination 
are  constitutional  and  indispensable ;  insomuch,  that  if  any  quar- 
terly meeting  withdraws  itself  from  its  proper  yearly  meeting, 
without  being  in  due  and  regular  manner  united  to  some  other 
yearly  meeting,  it  ceases  to  be  a  quarterly  meeting  of  the  society 


11 

of  Friends.  In  like  manner  of  the  other  meetings,  down  to  the 
lowest.  So  that  if  a  preparative  meeting  withdraws  from  its  pe- 
culiar monthly  meeting,  and  does  not  unite  with  another  of  the 
same  common  head,  or  some  other  legal  and  constitutional  head, 
or  in  other  words,  some  acknowledged  meeting,  it  does,  from  the 
moment,  and  by  the  very  act  of  withdrawal,  cease  to  be  a  pre- 
parative meeting  of  the  society  of  Friends. 

The  truth  of  the  position  I  have  thus  laid  down,  respecting  con 
nection  and  subordination,  will  not,  I  presume,  in  the  manner  and 
to  the  full  extent  which  I  have  stated,  meet  with  any  denial  or 
doubt.  Yet,  as  it  is  of  considerable  importance  in  the  present 
cause,  I  shall  show  that  it  is  established;  first,  by  the  constitution 
or  discipHne  of  the  society ;  second,  by  their  usages,  or  as  they 
might  be  called,  in  forensic  language,  cases  in  point,  or  prece- 
dents ;  and  lastly,  by  the  opinion  of  the  society  at  large,  so  far  as 
may  be  learned  from  the  views  of  well  informed  members. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  as  proposed,  let  us  look  into  the 
book  of  discipline.  We  find  there  the  following  clear  and  expli- 
cit language.  "  For  the  more  regular  and  effectual  support  of 
this  order  of  the  society,  besides  the  usual  meetings  for  the  purpo- 
ses of  divine  worship,  others  are  instituted,  subordinate  to  each 
other ;  such  as,  first,  preparative  meetings,  which  commonly  con- 
sist of  the  members  of  a  meeting  for  worship ;  second,  monthly 
meetings,  each  of  which  commonly  consists  of  several  prepara- 
tive meetings ;  third,  quarterly  meetings,  each  of  which  consists 
of  several  of  the  monthly  meetings ;  and  fourth,  the  yearly  meet- 
ing, which  comprises  the  whole."  "  These  meetings  have  all  dis- 
tinct allotments  of  service."  The  connection  of  the  several  meet- 
ings, and  their  subordination,  in  the  manner  I  have  suggested,  are 
here  most  plainly  and  unequivocally  shown  and  established.  The 
place  which  this  clause  occupies  in  the  discipline  or  constitution, 
(and  the  latter  name  seems  more  familiar,  or  at  least  to  convey  to 
pi'ofessional  minds,  more  distinct  ideas,)  serves  to  illustrate  its  im- 
portance. It  is  mentioned  at  the  commencement;  as  if,  one  of  the 
first  truths  to  be  taught  and  known ;  as  if,  the  very  foundation  of 
the  structure  of  discipline  raised  upon  it.  The  article  on  appeals 
speaks  the  same  idea.  A  person  aggrieved  may  appeal  from  the 
monthly  meeting  to  the  quarterly  meeting,  and  the  monthly  meet- 
ing are  in  such  case,  to  appoint  a  committee  to  show  the  reasons 


12 

of  their  judgment  and  submit  it  there,  where  the  judgment  is  to 
be  confirmed  or  reversed.  From  the  quarter!)'  meeting,  an  ap- 
peal may  be  taken  to  the  yearly  meeting,  whei'e  a  committee  are 
to  attend  with  copies  of  the  records  of  the  monthly  and  quarterly 
meetings,  and  where  the  matter  is  to  be  finally  determined ;  and  a 
copy  of  the  determination  is  to  be  sent  to  the  meeting  from  which 
the  appeal  came.  In  the  article  on  meetings  for  discipline  are 
contained  the  following  clauses.  "  The  connection  and  subordina- 
tion of  our  meetings  for  discipline  are  thus,  preparative  meetings 
are  accountable  to  the  monthly ;  monthly  to  the  quarterly ;  and 
the  quarterly  to  the  yearly  meeting.  So  that  if  the  yearly  meet- 
ing be  at  any  time  dissatisfied  with  the  proceedings  of  any  infe- 
rior meeting,  or  a  quarterly  meeting  with  the  proceedings  of  ei- 
ther of  its  monthly  meetings,  or  a  monthly  meeting  with  the  pro- 
ceedings of  either  of  its  preparative  meetings,  such  meeting  or 
meetings  ought  with  readiness  and  meekness,  to  render  an  ac- 
count thereof  when  required."  "It  is  agreed,  that  no  quarterly 
meeting  be  set  up  or  laid  down  without  the  consent  of  the  yearly 
meeting ;  no  monthly  meeting  without  the  consent  of  the  quarterly 
meeting ;  nor  any  preparative  or  other  meeting  for  business  or 
worship,  till  application  to  the  monthly  meeting  is  first  made,  and 
when  there  approved,  the  consent  of  the  quarterly  meeting  be  al- 
so obtained." 

Another  clause  requires  monthly  meetings  to  appoint  represen- 
tatives to  attend  the  quarterly  meetings;  and  that  at  least,  four  of 
each  sex  be  appointed  in  every  quarterly  meeting  to  attend  the 
yearly  meeting.  Another  clause  is  in  these  words :  "  The  use 
and  design  of  preparative  meetings  is,  in  general,  to  digest  and 
prepare  business,  as  occasion  may  require,  which  may  be  proper 
to  be  laid  before  the  monthly  meeting." 

The  connection  and  subordination  of  these  meetings,  and  their 
relative  rank  or  station  in  ecclesiastical  order,  being  thus  plainly 
and  conclusively  shown  and  established  by  the  highest  authority, 
the  revered  and  respected  rule  of  government  for  this  whole  re- 
ligious community,  we  may  naturally  expect,  what  accordingly 
we  find,  numerous  instances  of  the  exercise  of  authority,  of  the 
subsistence  of  this  connection,  and  of  the  fruits  of  tiiis  subordina- 
tion, in  the  conduct  toward  each  other,  of  the  respective  meetings. 
From  the  examples  which  are  abundnntly  furnished  us  in  the  evi- 


13 

dence,  I  shall  select  a  very  few,  and  I  prefer,  for  obvious  reasons, 
to  take  them  from  the  minutes  of  Burlington  and  Chesterfield 
meetings.  The  constant  intercourse  by  representatives,  and  the 
frequent  appointment  and  attendance  of  committees  from  the 
yearly  to  the  quarterly,  and  from  the  latter  to  inferior  meetings, 
need  only  to  be  mentioned  in  general  terms,  to  be  brought  fresh 
to  the  remembrance  of  all  who  know  any  thing  of  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal history  of  their  own  times  or  of  their  predecessors,  or  who 
have  perused  the  testimony  and  documents  before  us.  In  second 
month,  1778,  the  quarterly  meeting  of  Burlington  directed  the 
times  of  holding  certain  preparativa  meetings,  so  as  to  be  conve- 
nient to  a  committee  who  were  to  visit  them.  In  second  month, 
1820,  the  quarterly  meeting  refused  to  allow  the  holding  of  an  af- 
ternoon meeting  for  worship,  in  Trenton,  and  directed  their  clerk 
to  inform  the  monthly  meeting  of  Chesterfield  of  their  determina- 
tion. In  1821,  the  Trenton  preparative  meeting  requested  of  the 
monthly  meeting,  permission  to  continue  their  afternoon  sittings, 
and  leave  for  one  year  was  given.  In  fifth  month,  1825,  the  quar- 
terly meeting  declared,  that  certain  persons  admitted  into  mem- 
bership in  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting,  were  not  members,  and 
the  clerk  was  directed  to  communicate  this  conclusion  to  that 
meeting  and  to  the  individuals.  In  fifth  month,  1825,  the  quarter- 
ly meeting  annulled  the  proceedings  of  the  Chesterfield  monthly 
meeting  respecting  the  reception  of  a  person  as  one  of  its  mem- 
bers. In  eleventh  month,  1825,  Trenton  afternoon  meetings  were 
discontinued  by  order  of  the  monthly  meeting.  In  fourth  month, 
1826,  the  Trenton  preparative  meeting  requested  permission  to 
hold  an  afternoon  sitting,  which,  at  the  next  monthly  meeting,  was 
refused.  In  1826,  Thomas  L.  Shotwell,  one  of  the  parties  in  this 
cause,  was  disowned  by  the  monthly  meeting  of  Chesterfield.  He 
appealed  to  the  quarterly  meeting  of  Burlington,  where  the  dis- 
ownment  was  confirmed.  In  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meet- 
ing of  sixth  month,  1827,  the  extracts  from  the  yearly  meeting  of 
fourth  month,  1827,  were  produced  and  read.  Contributions  of 
money  are  statedly  made,  according  to  a  prescribed  ratio,  and 
forwarded  by  the  inferior  to  the  superior  meetings,  and  thus  a 
stock,  as  it  is  called,  is  maintained  in  the  yearly  meeting.  Occa- 
sional, or  ex  re  nata,  contributions  have  also,  at  'times,  been 
made.     The  yearly  meeting  of  1827,  recommended  the  raising 


14 

of  a  large  sum,  three  thousand  dollars,  for  a  work  of  benevolence, 
and  the  preparative  and  monthly  meetings  of  Chesterfield  pursued 
the  recommendation,  and  bore  their  usual  and  proportional  part 
in  carrying  it  into  eifect. 

A  brief  reference  will  show  that  individuals,  as  well  as  meet- 
ings and  the  book  of  discipline,  recognise  and  maintain  the  con- 
nection and  subordination  of  the  several  bodies  in  the  society.  In 
the  pleadings  of  the  parties  in  this  cause,  the  position  is  stated  by 
each  of  them,  especially  by  the  interpleading  parties,  Hendrickson 
and  Decow.  To  these  documents,  as  far  as  the  cause  is  concern- 
ed, it  might  suffice  to  refer,  since  whatever  is  admitted  by  both 
parties,  is,  as  respects  them,  incontrovertible.  But  a  recurrence 
to  the  following  parts  of  the  testimony,  will  show  that  what  is 
said  on  this  topic  in  the  pleadings,  is  the  very  language  and  sen- 
timent of  this  whole  religious  community.  For  the  sake  of  brevi- 
ty,  I  will  content  myself  with  mentioning  the  names  of  the  wit- 
nesses, and  the  pages  of  the  printed  volumes,  whither  any  one 
will  resort  who  is  disposed  to  examine  them  at  large.  Samuel 
Bettle,  1  vol.  62,  63,  83;  Samuel  Parsons,  1  voh  170;  Thomas 
Evans,  1  vol.  271,  272,  311 ;  John  Gummere,  1  vol.  316  ;  Samuel 
Craft,  1  vol.  334 ;  Abraham  Lower,  1  vol.  379,  405 ;  Halliday 
Jackson,  2  vol.  144,  178,  191;  Charles  Stokes,  2  vol.  218,  229; 
Josiah  Gaskill,  2  vol.  297 ;  James  Brown,  2  vol.  321,  322. 

From  this  view,  it  seems  to  me,  estabhshed  beyond  the  reach 
of  doubt,  that  according  to  the  constitution  of  the  society  of 
Friends,  a  preparative  meeting  must  be  subordinate  to  and  con- 
nected with  a  monthlv  meeting,  which  is  connected  with  and  sub- 
ordinate to  a  quarterly  meeting,  which  again  is  connected  with  and 
subordinate  to  a  yearly  meeting.  There  can  be  no  preparative 
meeting  which  is  not  so  connected  and  subordinate.  To  descend 
from  generals  to  particulars,  every  preparative  meeting  within  the 
bounds  of  the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia,  is,  and  must  be  con- 
nected with,  and  subordinate  to,  a  monthly  meeting  connected 
with,  and  subordinate  to,  a  quarterly  meeting,  which  is  connected 
with  and  subordinate  to,  that  yearly  meeting.  There  can  be  no 
preparative  meeting  within  those  bounds,  which  is  not  so  connec- 
ed  and  subordinate.  From  this  constitutional  principle,  the  fol- 
lowing rule  results  as  a  corollary.  Every  preparative  meeting 
within  those  bounds,  which  is,  through  and  by  its  appropriate  links, 


15 

connected  with,  and  subordinate  to,  the  yearly  meeting  of  Phila- 
delphia, is  a  "  preparative  meeting  of  the  people  called  Quakers ;" 
and  any  preparative  meeting  or  assemblage  of  persons,  calling 
themselves  a  preparative  meeting,  not  thus  connected  and  subor- 
dinate, is  not  a  preparative  meeting  of  that  people. 

In  laying  down  these  propositions,  I  expressly  avoid,  and  do  not 
propose  to  examine  or  decide,  unless  in  the  sequel  I  find  it  ne- 
cessary, a  question  much  agitated  and  discussed,  whether  a  pre- 
parative meeting  can  be  laid  down  without  its  consent.  There  is, 
however,  another  proposition  connected  therewith,  which,  so  as 
to  make  use  of  it  hereafter,  if  necessary,  I  shall  state  barely,  with- 
out a  protracted  or  tedious  enquiry',  because  I  believe  no  one  will 
gainsay  it.  A  preparative  meeting,  cannot  be  made  or  constitu- 
ted within  the  bounds  of  its  superior,  the  quarterly,  or  to  speak 
more  definitely,  a  new  preparative  meeting  cannot  be  set  up, 
within  the  bounds  of  the  Burlington  quarterly  meeting,  without 
the  sanction  of  the  latter  body ;  that  is  to  say,  of  the  Burlington 
quarterly  meeting,  which  is  connected  with,  and  subordinate  to, 
the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia.  I  avoid,  for  the  present  at 
least,  another  topic,  or  rather,  I  mean,  in  the  propositions  above 
stated,  to  express  no  opinion  upon  it,  whether  a  superior  meeting 
may  control  an  inferior,  in  matters  of  property,  or  of  a  pecuniaiy 
nature ;  and  also,  another  topic  somewhat  discussed  in  the  exami- 
nation of  the  witnesses,  if  not  by  the  counsel  on  the  argument, 
whether  a  superior  meeting  can,  without  appeal,  reverse  the  de- 
cision of  an  inferior,  or  take  cognizance  directly  and  originally, 
of  matters  not  coming,  by  way  of  appeal,  through  the  subordinate 
meetings. 

The  general  doctrine  of  the  connection  and  subordination  of 
meetings  for  business,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  show,  lias  been  ex- 
pressly applied  to  the  preparative  meeting  of  Chesterfield.  And 
as  this  topic  bears  much  upon  the  result  of  our  enquiries,  I  must 
enter  into  some  detail. 

Joseph  Hendrickson,  in  his  answer,  says,  "  There  have  been 
for  many  years  past,  a  monthly  and  preparative  meeting,  of  the 
the  said  society  of  Friends  of  Chesterfield  —  at  Crosswicks  : . . . 
that  the  said  meeting  at  Crosswicks,  is  under  the  control  and  ju- 
risdiction of  the  said  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia: that 

some  of  the  members  of  a  number  of  quarterly  and  monthly  meet- 


16 

ings,  which  were  under  the  control  and  jurisdiction  ol  the  regu- 
lar and  constitutional  yearly  meeting,  at  Philadelphia  aforesaid 

met  at  Philadelphia,  on  the  third  Monday  in  October,  1827, 

and  then  and  there,  irregularly,  and  contrary  to  discipline, 

formed  a  new  yearly  meeting  of  their  own,  which  was  adjourn- 
ed by  them,  to  the  second  Monday  of  April,  1828;  just  one  w^eek 
before  the  time  of  the  sitting  of  the  regular  constitutional  yearly 
meeting :  . . . .  that  these  religious  dissentions  and  divisions  found 
their  way  into  the  meeting  of  the  society  of  Friends,  at  Cross- 
wicks  aforesaid : that  the  '  Hicksite '  party,  and  '  Orthodox " 

party there,  hold  separate  and  distinct  meetings,  for  business 

and  worship,  the  former  being  under  the  jurisdiction  and  control 
of  the  new  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia  aforesaid,  to  which  they 
have  attached  themselves,  having  renounced  the  jurisdiction  and 
control  of  the  ancient  yearly  meeting-  aforesaid  ;  the  latter,  being 
under  the  jurisdiction  and  control  of  the  ancient  yearly  meeting," 
Stacy  Decow,  in  his  answer,  says,  "  that  for  many  years,  there 

has  been  established,  at  Crosswicks, a  preparative  meeting  of 

the  religious  society  of  Friends,  or  people  called  Quakers,  called 
and  known  by  the  name  of  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting 
of  Friends,  held  at  Crosswicks.  There  is  also  a  monthly  meet- 
ing of  Friends  established  at  the  same  place.  That  this  defend- 
ant is  now,  and  has  been  for  twenty  years  and  upwards,  a  mem- 
ber of  the  said  several  meetings :  ....  that  the  said  Chesterfield 
preparative  meeting  of  Friends,  at  Crosswicks,  to  which  he  be- 
longs, is  the  same  preparative  meeting  of  Friends,  at  Crosswicks 

under  whose  care,  the  said  school  fund  was  placed  : that  the 

said  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  of  Friends,  at  Crosswicks, 
of  which  this  defendant  is  a  member,  holds  communication  with 
the  yearly  meeting  of  Friends  established  in  Philadelphia,  which  the 
said  Joseph  Hendrickson  in  his  original  bill,  improperly  calls  the 
'  Hicksite'  party, and  which  yearly  meeting  this  defendant  in- 
sists, is  the  yearly  meeting  of  the  ancient  and  true  society  of 
Friends.  He  denies  that  the  society  of  Friends  to  which  he  be- 
longs, have  seceded  from  the  faith,  the  religious  institutions  or 
government  of  the  ancient  and  religious  society  of  Friends,  or 
from  the  ancient  legitimate  yearly  meeting  at  Philadelphia;  but 
the  time  of  holding  it  has  been  changed  from  the  third  second 
day  in  the  fourth  month,  to  the  second  second  day  of  the  same, 


17 

there  being  no  constitutional  time  for  the  assembling  of  the  year- 
ly meeting,  the  time  of  holding  it  was  changed  to  the  time  it  is 

now  held The  said  yearly  meeting  assembled  again  on  the 

said  second  second  day  in  the  fourth  month,  1828,  and  is  now 
settled  on  its  ancient  foundations  and  principles.  This  defendant 
therefore  denies  that  it  is  a  new  yearly  meeting  within  the  pale  of 
one  already  in  existence." 

The  testimony  on  this  subject,  of  some  of  the  witnesses,  is  to 
the  following  effect.  John  Gummere,  1  vol.  Evid.  315,  "  Bur- 
lington monthly  meeting,  is  a  subordinate  branch  of  Burlington 
quarterly  meeting,  which  quarter  is  subordinate  to  the  Philadel- 
phia yearly  meeting."  Ibid.  318,  "  That  yearly  meeting is  held 

annually,  on  the  third  second  day  of  the  fourth  month,  at  Ai'ch  street 
meeting  house,  in  Philadelphia."  Samuel  Craft,  1  vol.  Evid.  334, 
says,  "  From  my  earliest  recollection,  I  have  been  a  member  of  Bur- 
lington quarterly  meeting,  and  for  about  thirty-six  years  past,  I 
have  been  a  member  of  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting.  This 
monthly  and  quartei'ly  meeting,  now  ai'e,  and  have  been,  during 
all  that  period,  subordinate  branches  of  Philadelphia  yearly  meet- 
ing, held  for  many  years  past  in  the  meeting  house  on  Arch 
street,  on  the  third  second  day  in  the  fourth  month,  annually." 
Josiah  Gaskill,  2  vol.  Evid.  297,  says,  "  The  monthly  meeting, 
which  I  am  a  member  of,  does  consider  itself  members  of  Bur- 
lington quarterly  meeting,  which  considers  itself  members  of  the 
yearly  meeting  of  Friends  held  in  Philadelphia,  on  the  second  se- 
cond day  of  fourth  month,  at  Green  street."  Ibid.   301,    "The 

Burlington  quarterly  meeting held  at  Chesterfield have  sent 

representatives  to  the  yearly  meeting  of  Friends  held  in  Philadel- 
phia, in  fourth  month  ever  since  ....  the  second  second  day  iii 

fourth  month at  Green  street,  instead  of  Arch  street.      The 

yearly  meeting  at  Green  street,  I  consider  the  yearly  meeting  of 

Friends and  because  it  is  the  same  yearly  meeting  which, 

prior  to  1827,  had  been  held  in  Arch  street."  James  Brown,  2 
vol.  Evid.  321,  says,  "These  quarterly,  monthly,  and  preparative 
meetings,  are  but  parts  of  the  one  great  whole,  the  yearly  meeting. 

The    Chesterfield  monthly  and  preparative  meetings  were 

component  parts  of  the  Burlington  quarterly  meeting.  The  Bur 
lington  quarterly  meeting,  was  a  branch  of  the  yearly  meeting, 
which,  in  fourth  month,  1827,  was,  and  for  many  years  before 


18 

had  been  held  m  Arch  street,  Philadelphia." He  ■"  attended 

most  part  of  the  yearly  meeting  in  Arch  street,  1827,  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  society,  and  belonging  to  Chesterfield  monthly  meet- 
ing." Ibid.  322,  "  We  have  not  attached  ourselves,  as  I  apprehend, 
to  any  other  yearly  meeting  than  the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadel- 
phia, that  is  reorganized,  and  held  on  the  second  second  day  in 
fourth  month,  annually We  do  not  consider  ourselves  mem- 
bers of  the  yearly  meeting  held  there  (in  Arch  street)  since  1827." 
"  That  portion  of  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  which  .... 
continues  to  hold  that  meeting  at  the  usual  times  and  places ;" 
( that  is  to  say,  the  preparative  meeting  M'hereby  Decow  was  ap- 
pointed treasurer  of  the  school  fund,  as  is  elsewhere  shewn  and 
expressed)  "  acknowledge  themselves,  or  claim  to  be,  a  part  of  the 

monthl}-  meeting  which still  continues  a  member  of  the  Green 

street  yearly  meeting."  The  testimony  of  the  last  witness,  James 
Brown,  demands  peculiar  attention  from  the  station  he  held,  as 
clerk  of  the  preparative  meeting  of  which  Decow  is  a  member, 
and  from  the  confidence  reposed  in  that  ofiicer  by  the  usages  of 
the  society,  and  the  intimate  knowledge  he  must  acquire  and  pos- 
sess of  the  acts,  connections,  and  sentiments  of  the  meeting. 

It  thus  appears  there  were  and  are,  two  distinct  bodies,  each  claim- 
ing to  be  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  of  Friends  at  Cross- 
wicks,  and  each  claiming  to  be  the  same  meeting  under  whose  care 
the  school  fund  was  placed,  and  yet,  de  jure^  remains.  I  stop  here  a 
moment,  to  fix  the  time  when  these  bodies  were  distinctly  and 
separately  organized,  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  it  was  before 
the  appointment  of  Decow,  as  treasurer  of  the  school  fund.  And 
on  account  of  the  connection,  it  may  be  useful  to  look  also,  to  the 
higher  meetings.  The  separation  in  the  Burlington  quarterly  meet- 
ing appears  to  have  occurred  in  the  eleventh  month,  1827.  Sam- 
uel Emlen,  1  vol  Evid.  325;  Josiah  Gaskill,  2  vol.  Evid.  301 ; 
Charles  Stokes,  2  vol.  Evid.  207.  The  latter  witness  says,  he 
"attended  the  Burhngton  quarterly  meeting  in  the  eleventh  month, 
1827.  At  that  jneeting  a  separation  did  take  place."  And  in 
answer  ( 229)  to  this  question,  "  After  the  separation  of  which 
you  have  spoken,  in  1827,  did  your  quarterly  meeting  consider 
itself  as  a  constituent  branch  of  the  yearly  meeting  held  at  Arch 
street,  Philadelphia,  on  the  third  second  day  of  fourth  month  ? " 
He  answered,  "  The  quarterly  meeting  considered  itself  a  constitu- 


19 

ent  branch  of  the  yearh'  meeting  of  Philadelphia,  which  had  been 
held  some  years  previously  at  the  Arch  street  house,  on  the  third 
second  day  of  fourth  montli ;  but  which,  owing  to  the  circum- 
stances which  had  grown  out  of  the  unsettled  and  divided  state 
of  society,  it  was  concluded,  should  be  held  on  the  second  second 
day  of  fourth  month." 

The  separation  in  the  monthly  meeting  of  Chesterfield,  or  the 
session  of  two  distinct  bodies,  and  the  transaction  of  business  sep- 
arately by  these  bodies,  took  place  as  early  as  ninth  or  tenth 
month,  1827.  Samuel  Emlen.  1  vol.  Evid.  324,  328,  331  ;  Sam- 
uel Craft,  1  vol.  Evid.  336,  337;  Josiah  Gaskill,  2  vol.  Evid.  284. 
He  fixes  the  time,  the  tenth  month,  1827,  and  says  "  There  did  a 
separation  take  place  in  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting  in  that 
month."  He  farther  states,  (296)  that  the  Chesterfield  monthly 
meeting  with  which  he  was  united,  did  at  their  meeting  in  that 
month,  appoint  representatives  on  behalf  of  that  meeting,  to  at- 
tend the  contemplated  yearly  meeting  to  be  held  in  Philadelphia, 
in  that  same  month  ;  and  in  this  respect  he  is  fully  supported  by 
the  book  of  minutes,  which  is  before  us  as  an  exhibit ;  and  he  far- 
ther testifies,  that  the  representatives,  with  one  exception,  attended 
the  yearly  meeting  in  the  tenth  month,  1827. 

The  separation  in  the  preparative  meeting  of  Chesterfield,  bears 
date  in  the  twelfth  month,  1827.  Samuel  Emlen,  1  vol.  Evid. 
325 ;  Samuel  Craft,  1  vol.  Evid.  339,  347  ;  Josiah  Gaskill,  2  vol. 
Evid.  286.  The  latter  witness  says,  (287)  that  after  those  who 
separated,  left  the  preparative  meeting,  the  meeting  proceeded  in 
first  month,  1828,  to  appoint  trustees  of  the  school  fund,  and  that 
Decow  was  appointed  treasurer  at  the  same  meeting.  The  testi- 
mony of  James  Brown  is  very  exphcit  and  satisfactory  on  this 
topic,  and  its  importance,  from  the  station  he  held  as  clerk  of  the 
meeting,  has  been  already  suggested.  He  says,  2  vol.  Evid.  323, 
that  the  appointment  of  Stacy  Decow  as  treasurer  of  the  school 
fund,  was  made  after  the  time  when  the  separation  of  the  prepar- 
ative meeting  of  Chesterfield  into  two  bodies  or  meetings,  each 
calling  themselves  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting,  took 
place. 

It  thus  clearly  appears,  that  before  the  appointment  of  Decow 
as  treasui'er,  there  were  formed  and  existed,  two  distinct  bodies, 
claiming  to  be  the  Chesterfield  preparative   meeting  of  Friends  ; 


20 

the  one  of  them  connected  with  a  body  calling  itself  the  ancient 
yearly  meeting  of  Friends  of  Philadelphia,  which  holds  its  ses- 
sions on  the  third  second  day  of  April  in  a  meeting  house  on  Arch 
street,  and  the  other,  and  by  which  Decow  was  appointed,  which 
disclaims  all  connection  with  the  above  mentioned  yearly  meeting, 
is  connected  with  another  body  calling  itself  the  ancient  yearly 
meeting  of  Friends  of  Philadelphia,  w^iich  holds  its  sessions  on  the 
second  second  day  of  April  in  a  meeting  house  on  Green  street.  It 
also  appears  there  are  two  sepai'ate  bodies,  styling  themselves 
and  claiming  to  be,  the  ancient  and  constitutional  yearly  meeting 
of  Friends  of  Philadelphia.  There  is,  however,  and  there  can  be, 
as  is  asserted  and  admitted  by  all,  but  one  ancient  yearly  meet- 
ing, and  but  one  body  entitled  to  that  appellation.  This  truth  is 
distinctly  admitted  by  the  pleadings  of  the  parties ;  it  is  plainly 
asserted  by  the  book  of  discipline,  which  all  who  claim  to  be  of 
the  society  of  Friends,  as  do  all  the  parties,  and  if  my  memory 
is  correct,  all  the  witnesses,  in  the  cause,  unqualifiedly  admit  to 
be  their  standard  and  their  guide ;  and  it  is  testified  by  several  of 
the  witnesses,  whose  depositions  I  have  already  noticed ;  to  which 
may  be  added  that  of  Halliday  Jackson,  an  intelligent  and  well 
informed  witness  examined  on  the  part  of  Decow.  2  vol.  Evid. 
155. 

We  are  now  brought  to  the  enquiry,  which  of  these  two  bodies 
or  meetings  is  the  ancient  yearly  meeting  of  Friends  of  Philadel- 
phia ;  an  enquiry  which,  if  I  may  judge  from  my  own  feelings 
and  reflections,  is  of  the  deepest  interest  and  importance.  There 
is,  and  can  be  but  one  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  of  the  so- 
ciety of  Friends.  There  is,  and  can  be  but  one  yearly  meeting. 
A  preparative  meeting  must  be  connected  with  the  yearly  meet- 
ing of  Philadelphia,  and  without  such  connection,  no  assemblage 
is  a  preparative  meeting.  One  of  these  bodies,  or  preparative 
meetino-s,  is  connected  with  the  one,  and  the  other  with  the  other 
of  the  yearly  meetings.  Which  then  is  the  yearly  meeting?  Or 
to  confine  our  enquiry  within  the  only  requisite  range,  is  the  meet- 
inof  or  body  assembling  on  the  second  second  day  of  the  fourth 
month  at  Green  street,  the  ancient  yearly  meeting  ?  If  it  is,  De- 
cow is  the  treasurer.  If  not,  as  I  have  already  shown.  Hendrick- 
son,  once  the  acknowledged  treasurer  and  the  obligee,  named 
as  such  in  the  bond,  is  entitled  to  the  money.     When  such  con- 


21 

sequences  hang  on  this  question,  may  I  not  call  it  interesting  and 
important?  May  I  not  stand  excused,  if  I  approach  it  with  great 
anxiety  and  deep  solicitude? 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  at  a  very 
early  period  in  the  progress  of  the  settlement  of  New  Jersey  and 
Pennsylvania,  the  number  and  condition  of  the  followers  of 
George  Fox,  or  the  people  called  Quakers,  rendered  it  desirable 
they  should  be  brought  under  a  common  head,  according  to  the 
form  of  ecclesiastical  government  adopted  in  England  and  al- 
ready existing  in  some  of  the  more  ancient  colonies.  In  the  year 
1681  or  1685,  (the  precise  time  seems  to  be  controverted,  and 
cannot  influence  our  present  pursuits,)  a  yearly  meeting  was  es- 
tabhshed,  comprehending  the  provinces  of  New  Jersey  and  Penn- 
sylvania, and  the  members  of  that  religious  society  and  their  al- 
ready organized  meetings  and  judicatories  of  inferior  grades. 
This  body  was  not  a  mere  incidental,  casual,  disconnected  assem- 
blage, convening  without  previous  arrangement,  ceasing  to  exist 
when  its  members  separated,  and  formed  anew  when  individuals 
came  together  again  at  some  subsequent  time.  It  was  a  regular- 
ly organized  and  established  body,  holding  stated  sessions,  corres- 
ponding with  other  bodies  of  the  same  religious  denomination, 
consulting  together  for  the  welfare  of  a  portion  of  theii;  church 
and  its  members,  the  ultimate  arbiter  of  all  differences,  and  the 
common  head  and  governor  of  all  belonging  to  the  society  of 
Friends,  within  its  jurisdiction,  which  extended  over  the  territo- 
ries just  mentioned,  while  they  were  called  provinces,  and  since 
they  assumed  the  name  and  rank  of  states.  The  meetings  of  this 
body  were  held  annually,  as  its  name  imports,  and  as  long  and 
steady  usage  has  wrought  into  a  part  of  its  essential  structure. 
The  time  and  place  of  convention  are  subject  to  its  control, 
and  have,  accordingly,  in  several  instances,  been  fixed  and  alter- 
ed by  it.  The  time  and  place,  however,  when  and  where  only 
the  body  can  constitutionally  assemble  and  act,  must,  when  fixed, 
so  remain,  until  "the  voice  of  the  body,"  "  in  a  yearly  meeting 
capacity,"  which  alone  has  the  power  and  right  "  to  govern  its 
own  proceedings,"  shall  resolve  on  and  enact  a  change.  Such, 
is  certainly  the  rule  of  constitutional  law,  as  applicable  to  this  body; 
and  such  was  their  own  practical  construction  of  it,  in  the  year 
1798,  when  in  the  conscientious  discharge  of  duty,  they  assem- 


22 

bled,  undeterred  by  the  ravages  of  pestilence  and  the  arrows  of 
death.  From  the  year  1685,  for  nearly  a  century  and  an  half, 
this  body  held  its  periodical  sessions ;  for  years,  alternately  at 
Burlington  and  Philadelphia,  and  finally  in  the  latter  city  alone ; 
and  there,  successively,  at  their  houses  on  Pine  street,  on  Keyes' 
alley,  and  on  Arch  street.  Changes  in  time  and  place  have  oc- 
curred ;  but  always  by  a  previous  resolve,  by  "  the  voice  of  that 
body,"  "in  a  yearly  meeting  capacity."  In  1811,  the  place 
w'as  fixed  in  the  meeting  house,  on  Arch  street.  In  1798,  the 
time  was  changed  to  the  third  second  day  of  the  fourth  month  of 
each  year ;  and  by  the  book  of  discipline,  promulged  by  the  year- 
ly meeting  in  1806,  and  as  already  observed,  the  acknowledged 
constitution  of  this  religious  community,  the  latter  day  is  declared 
the  period  for  its  convention.  No  other  day  is  mentioned ;  no 
other  day  is  provided  for  under  any  circumstances  ;  nor  is  any 
occasional,  intermediate,  or  special  meeting  authorised. 

In  the  year  1826,  at  the  prescribed  time  and  place,  a  meeting 
was  held.  After  the  transaction  of  its  business,  it  adjourned, 
according  to  the  ancient  and  wonted  form,  "  to  meet  in  the  next 
year  at  the  usual  time."  This  body  thus  convened  and  thus  ad- 
journed, was,  without  dispute,  the  Philadelphia  yearly  meeting  of 
Friends.  On  the  third  second  day  of  April,  1827,  at  the  house 
on  Arch  street,  the  designated  time  and  place,  a  meeting  assem- 
bled. It  was  composed  of  the  representatives  from  the  several 
quarterly  meetings,  and  of  all  sucli  individuals  as  inclination  or 
duty  had  brought  together.  The  regular  constituent  parts  w^ere 
there.  Those  w^ho  ai-e  since  so  openly  divided  by  name,  perhaps 
by  feeling,  peradventui-e  by  principles,  then  sat  down  together ; 
one  in  form,  if  not  in  spirit :  in  unity  of  body,  if  not  of  mind.  The 
clerk  of  the  preceding  year,  according  to  ancient  rule,  opened 
the  meeting  in  due  order,  for  however  simple,  there  was,  never- 
theless, an  established  ceremony.  The  representatives  were  call- 
ed, certificates  of  ^^siting  strangers  were  received,  epistles  from 
corresponding  bodies  were  read,  committees  were  arranged,  the 
usual  affairs  of  the  occasion  were  transacted  in  unity  and  peace. 
The  representatives  were,  in  wonted  manner,  desired  to  abide  for 
the  next  step  in  the  progress  of  business.  This  body  thus  con- 
vened, was  assuredly  the  yearly  meeting;  and  up  to  the  close 
of  the  forenoon,  it  sustained  its  constitutional  existence.      If  thai 


assemblage  ceased  to  be  the  Philadelphia  yearly  meeting,  some- 
thing which  occun'ed  subsequent  to  the  close  of  the  first  sitting 
must  have  wrought  out  that  result. 

Such  result  was  produced,  say  the  defendant,  Decow%  and  the 
meeting  whereby  he  was  appointed  treasurer.  This  body  ceased 
to  be  the  yearly  meeting  of  Friends,  was  dissolved,  broken  up 
"into  its  individual  elements,"  {Abraham  Lower,  1  vol.  Evid.  421,)  and 
reorganized,  in  the  ensuing  autumn,  in  the  yearly  meeting  which 
assembled  in  Green  street,  which  became  invested  with  the  con- 
stitutional powers  and  rights  incident  to  the  Philadelphia  yearly- 
meeting,  and,  the  successor,  or  rather  the  continuance  of  the  same 
body,  which  had  been  formed  in  the  seventeenth  century,  at  Bur- 
lington, and  had  from  thence  conducted  and  governed  the  affairs 
of  the  society,  and  connected  wdth  itself  the  subordinate  meetings, 
and  this  whole  religious  community. 

Our  next  duty  then,  is  to  examine  the  causes  Avhich  are  alleged 
to  have  deprived  this  body  of  constitutional  existence.  And  these 
ai'e,  first,  the  acts  of  the  body  in  a  collective  capacity ;  second, 
the  omission  of  the  body  to  perform  certain  collective  duties ;  and 
third,  the  designs,  plans,  views,  feelings  and  acts  of  individual 
members.  Under  one  or  another  of  these,  is  comprehended,  it 
is  believed,  every  operating  cause  suggested  in  the  pleadings,  in 
the  testimony  of  the  witnesses,  and  in  the  arguments  of  the  coun- 
sel. 

The  only  acts  alleged  against  the  body  in  a  collective  capacity, 
are  two  in  number.  First,  the  appointment  of  a  clerk  of  the 
meeting;  and  secondly,  the  appointment,  near  the  close  of  the 
session,  of  a  committee  to  visit  the  subordinate  meetings. 

First,  the  appointment  of  clerk  to  the  meeting.  To  regard  the 
act  against  which  this  complaint  is  directed  as  the  appointment  of 
a  clerk,  is  an  entire  misapprehension.  It  was,  in  truth,  no  more 
than  the  continuance  in  office  of  the  former  clerk  ;  and  as  it  seems 
to  me,  so  far  from  an  act  of  the  body  in  its  collective  capacity,  in 
violation  of  any  rule,  it  was  a  strict,  and  under  the  circumstan- 
ces in  which  the  meeting  was  placed,  an  unavoidable  compliance 
with,  and  adherence  to,  the  ancient  custom  and  order  of  the  so- 
ciety. 

According  thereto,  the  nomination  of  clerk  is  to  be  made,  not 
in  or  by  the  meeting  at  large,  but  by  the  representatives,  as   tliey 


24 

aY6  called,  or  in  other  wordsj  the  persons  deputed  by  the  several 
quartei'ly  meetings  to  attend,  not  merely  as  individuals,  but  as  the 
organs  of  those  meetings,  in  their  official  character. 

Tile  representatives,  pursuant  to  the  request  already  mention- 
ed, remained  at  the  close  of  the  forenoon  session,  to  discharge 
this  duty.     It  is  not  my  purpose  to  enquire  into,  or  relate  in  de- 
tail, what   passed  among   them.     In  the  result,  they  could  not 
agree,   or  did  not  agree,  on  the  names  of  any  persons  to  be  pro- 
posed for  the  offices  of  clerk  and  assistant;  and  a  report  to  this 
effect  was  made  to  the  yearly  meeting,  when  it  opened  in  the  af- 
ternoon.    No  nomination  was  offered.     Put,  now,  the  case  in  the 
strongest  view ;  suppose  the  representatives  had  wantonly,  or  in 
neglect  of  their  trust,  omitted  to  propose  names  to  the   meeting  ? 
Was  all  further  proceeding  at  an  end  ?   Was  the  meeting  closed  ? 
The  Book  of  Disciphne,  it  is  true,  prescribes  no  guide  or  directo- 
ry under   such  circumstances.     But  ancient  custom,  founded  on 
the  obvious  dictates  of  reason,  had  estabhshed  in  this  respect  an 
operative  law.     The  clerk  and    his  assistant,  of  the   preceding 
year,  were  to  act,  and  without  any  new  appointment  or  induc- 
tion, were  authorised  to  continue  to  discharge  their  appropriate 
functions,  until  the  names  of  other  persons  were  regularly  brought 
forward,  and  united  with,  or  in  other  words,   appointed.     In  ac- 
cordance therewith,  and  in  view  of  the  condition  of  the  meeting, 
and  of  the  difficulty  which  existed,  an  aged  member  ( William 
Jackson)   who  had  attended  more  than  sixty  years,  and  had  thus 
acquired  experience,  perhaps  beyond  any  individual  of  the  assem- 
bly, rose  and  stated, that  "it  had  been  always  the  practice  for  the 
old  clerks  to  serve  until  new  ones  were  appointed;"  and  he  pro- 
posed to  the  meeting,  "  that  the  present  clerks  should  be  contin- 
ued for  that  year."  (  Thomas  Evans,  1  vol.  Evid.  265.)  Some  differ- 
ence of  opinion  occurred  and  w^as  expressed,   as   to  the    course 
most  eligible  to  be  pursued.     Some  persons  wished  to  refer  the 
subject  again  to  the  representatives,    for   farther    consideration. 
"  Sevei'al  of  the  representatives  gave  it  as  their  opinion,  there  would 
be  no  advantage  in  so  referring  it,  as  there  was  not  the  smallest 
probability    that    they    could    agree.     The  first  person  who  ex- 
pressed this  opini()n,was  one  of  those  who  have  since"  united  with 
the   meeting   in  Green  street,  "  and  he  added,  that  although  he 
should  have  been  in   favor  of  a  change  in    the  clerk,  if  it  could 


25 

have  been  satisfactorily  accomplished,  yet  as  tliat  was  not  likely 
to  be  the  case,  he  thought  the  meeting  had  better  proceed  with  its 
business.  Several  others  of  the  same  party  expressed  similar 
sentiments.  Meanwhile  a  considerable  number  of  those  "  who  re- 
main attached  to  the  Arch  street  meeting,  "  expressed  their  ap- 
probation of  the  continuance  of  the  present  clerks,  and  a  minute 
desiring  the  old  clerks  to  continue  to  serve  the  meeting,"  (  Samuel 
Bettle,  1  vol.  Evid.  68,)  was  made  and  read.  "  On  the  reading  of  the 
minute,  some  of  those  who"  now  belong  to  the  Green  street  meet- 
ing, "  still  continued  to  object,  when  one  of  their  number  remark- 
ed, he  believed  it  was  the  best  thing  the  meeting  could  do,  under 
all  the  circumstances,  and  advised  them  to  submit  to  it,  as  he  did 
not  think  it  would  make  so  much  difterence  to  them,  as  some  of 
them  might  imagine.  Similar  sentiments  were  expressed  by  one 
or  two  others  of  that  party,  and  all  objections  to  the  appointment 
having  ceased,  John  Comly,  the  assistant  clerk,  was  requested  to 
come  to  the  table.  He  did  not  immediately  do  so,  nor  until  seve- 
ral of  his  friends  expressed  that  they  thought  that  the  business  of 
the  meeting  *had  better  go  forward."  The  usual  business  then 
proceeded.  This  view,  is  chiefly  extracted  from  the  testimony  of 
Thomas  Evans.  It  is  fully  sustained  by  the  depositions  of  Sam- 
uel Bettle  and  Joseph  Whitall,  and  is,  in  no  material  point,  im- 
pugned by  any  contradictory  evidence.  Some  other  witnesses, 
who  speak  of  these  transactions,  are  not  so  full  and  minute  in  de- 
tail, and  some,  it  is  to  be  regretted,  do  not  recollect  the  occur- 
rences of  very  interesting  moments ;  as,  for  example,  one  of  them, 
speaking  of  the  afternoon  of  the  first  day,  and  having  related 
some  of  the  events,  added,  "  The  meeting  proceeded  on  that  af- 
ternoon. I  don't  remember  particularly  what  took  place."  (Halli- 
day  Jackson,  2  vol.  Evid.  54.)  In  their  opinions,  in  their  inferences, 
in  their  feelings,  we  observe,  as  might  be  expected,  a  dilTerence 
among  the  witnesses,  but  it  is  pleasing  to  meet  with  no  such  col- 
lision of  facts,  as  to  render  necessary  the  delicate  and  arduous  du- 
ty of  weighing  and  comparing  evidence. 

It  is  however  said,  the  greater  number  of  the  representatives 
wished  to  release  the  former  clerk,  and  to  nominate  another  in 
his  stead  ;  that  a  proposal  was  made  to  take  their  sense  by  a  vote  ; 
and  that  this  measure,  which  would  have  resulted  in  a  majority 


26 

for  a  new  clerk,  was  prevented  and  defeated,  by  the  conduct  of 
those  who  sought  to  retain  the  services  of  the  former  officer. 

One  of  the  peculiar  and  distinguishing  characteristics  of  this 
people,  consists  in  their  mode  of  transacting  business  and  arriving 
at  conclusions ;  in  which,  rejecting  totally  the  principle  that  a  ma- 
jority, as  such,  is  to  rule,  or  decide,  or  govern,  they  arrive  at  an 
unity  of  resolution  and  action,  in  a  mode  peculiar  to  themselves, 
and  entirely  difTercnt  from  that  common  to  all  civil  or  political, 
and  to  most  ecclesiastical  bodies.  They  look  and  wait  for  an 
union  of  mind ;  and  the  result  is  produced,  not  by  a  vote  or  count 
of  numbers,  but  by  an  yielding  up  of  opinions,  a  deference  for 
the  judgment  of  each  other,  and  an  acquiescence  or  submission  to 
the  measure  proposed.  Where  a  division  of  sentiment  occurs, 
the  matter  is  postponed  for  farther  consideration,  or  withdrawn 
or  dismissed  entirely ;  or,  after  sometimes  a  temperate  discussion, 
and  sometimes  a  silent  deliberation,  those  who  support,  or  those 
who  oppose  a  measure,  acquiesce  in  the  sense  of  the  meeting  as 
collected  and  minuted  by  the  clerk ;  and  they  believe  the  "  spirit  of 
truth,"  when  the  meeting  is  "  rightly  gathered,"  will  be  transfused 
through  their  minds,  and  they  will  be  guided  and  influenced  "  by 
a  wisdom  and  judgment  better  than  their  own,"  and  that  their 
clerk  will  be  led  to  act  under  "  the  overshadowing  of  that  power, 
which  is  not  at  his  command,  and  which  will  enable  him  to  make 
proper  decisions."  One  of  the  witnesses  examined  on  the  part  of 
Decow  informs  us,  the  clerk,  "  collects,  not  by  an  actual  count  of 
numbers,  or  recording  the  yeas  and  nays,  yet  by  an  estimate  of 
the  prevailing  sense,  which  the  meeting,  after  discussion,  usually 
settles  with  sufficient  distinctness,  one  way  or  the  other."  (Charles 
Stokes,  2  vol.  Evid.  249.)  The  account  given  by  Clarkson,  in  his 
Portraiture  of  Quakerism,  is  represented  to  be  correct,  although 
never  expressly  recognized  by  the  society.  "  When  a  subject  is 
brought  before  them,  it  is  canvassed  to  the  exclusion  of  all  extra- 
neous matter,  till  some  conclusion  results;  the  clerk  of  the  meet- 
ing then  draws  up  a  minute,  containing,  as  nearly  as  he  can  col- 
lect, the  substance  of  this  conclusion ;  this  minute  is  then  read 
aloud  to  the  auditory,  and  either  stands  or  undergoes  an  altera- 
tion, as  appears  by  the  silence  or  discussion  upon  it,  to  be  the  sense 
of  the  meeting ;  when  fully  agreed  upon,  it  stands  ready  to  be  re- 
corded." (1  Clarksoris  Portrait.  Quah.  157.)  The  world  at  large. 


27 

and  especially  those  who  have  not  closely  observed  the  practical 
operation  of  these  principles,  in  the  peace  and  harmony  and  pros- 
perity of  the  internal  affairs  of  this  religious  community,  may  be 
strongly  inclined  to  call  in  question  their  expediency.     A  republi- 
can spirit  may  see  no  just  rule,  but  in  the  voice  of  a  majority.    A 
jealousy  of  power  may  suspect  too  much  confidence  in  the  fair- 
ness and  candor  of  the  clerk.    But  the  conclusive  answer  to  all 
such  suggestions  and  suspicions  is,  that  they  are  free  to  act  as 
their  judgments  and  consciences  may  dictate.     We  are  not  to  in- 
terfere with  their  church  government  any  more  than  with  their 
modes  of  faith  and  worship.   We  are  to  respect  their  institutions, 
and  to  sustain  them.     Nor  can  any  individual  be  hereby  aggriev- 
ed.    He  is  under  no    restraint  to  remain  among  them.     When- 
ever he  is  persuaded  that  either  their  faith  or  their  pi*actice,  does 
not  accord  with  his  own  views  of  reason  and  Scripture,  he  is   at 
liberty  to  leave  them,  and  to  seek  elsewhere,  more  purity,  more 
spirituality,  more  christian  and  Scripture  order,  more  safety,  more 
republicanism,  or  more  peace.     The  constitution  of  this  society, 
neither  recognizes  nor  makes  provision  for  a  vote,  or  a  decision 
on   the   principle   of  numbers,    in  any  instance  or  predicament. 
The   minutes   and  journals  of  the  various  meetings,  not  merely 
within  the  bounds  of  this  yearly  meeting,  but  within  the  pale  of 
the    whole    society,    do  not  furnish,  so    far  as  we    are  able   to 
learn,    a   single  record  of  a  vote  taken,  or  a  count  of  numbers. 
The  instances  of  reports  made  by  the  major  part  of  committees, 
form  no  exception  to  the  universality  of  this  rule  of  action.     Nor 
do  the  few,  I  say  few  enaphatically,  compared  with  the  myriads 
of  decisions  standing  on  their  records,  nor  do  the  few  minutes, 
which  industry  has   gleaned  up,  of  expressions  like  these:  "the 
greatest  part  of  Friends  think  it  best,"  or  "  it  appears  to  be  the 
most  general  sense,"  serve  to  shew  that  a  vote  was. taken,  or  that 
numbers,  as  such,  prevailed,  or  that  the  minor  part  did  not  freely 
relinquish  their  views,   and   cordially    acquiesce  in  those  of  the 
greater  part.     Let  us,  for  example,  look  to  the  minutes  of  Ches- 
terfield monthly  meeting,  of  sixth  month,  1691,  because  it  is,  of 
Chesterfield,    and  of  very  ancient  date.     "  The  building  of  the 
meeting  houses  being  taken  into  consideration,  a  meeting  house 
on  this  side  is  generally  agreed  upon  to  be  built,  and  the  greatest 
part  of  Friends  think  it  best  to  have  it  at  the  grave  yard."     Here 


28 

is  no  allusion  to  a  vote,  nor  any  thing  to  indicate  that  all  did  not 
acquiesce  in  what  the  greatest  part  thought  best.  Barclay,  in  his 
treatise  on  church  government,  gives  the  following  explanation, 
and  most  pointedly  condemns  the  rule  of  the  greatest  number. 
"  The  only  proper  judge  of  controversies  in  the  church,  is  the 
spirit  of  God ;  and  the  power  of  deciding  lies  solely  in  it,  as  hav- 
ing the  only  unerring,  infallible  and  certain  judgment  belonging 
to  i-t ;  which  infallibility  is  not  necessarily  annexed  to  any  per- 
sons, person  or  place,  whatever,  by  vii'tue  of  any  office,  place  or 
station  any  one  may  have,  or  have  had,  in  the  body  of  Christ ; 
that  is  to  say,  that  any  have  ground  to  reason  thus,  because  T  am, 
or  have  been,  such  an  eminent  member,  therefore  my  judgment 
is  infallible,  or  because  we  are  the  greatest  number."  ( Barclay 
on  Church  GovernmRnt,  78.)  Hence  then,  I  think,  we  are  not 
called  to  inquire  how  far  the  allegation  as  to  the  relative  numbers 
of  the  representatives  is  correct,  and  we  may  justly  dismiss  from 
farther  consideration,  the  objection  that  the  old  clerk  would  not 
have  received  a  majority  of  votes.  The  very  proposal  to  take  a 
vote,  was  an  overture  to  depart,  and  the  consummation  of  it 
would  have  been  a  departure,  from  an  ancient  and  unvarying 
practice,  which  had  not  only  grown  up  to  an  overshadowing 
tree,  but  had  its  root  in  religious  faith,  and  was  nourished  and 
sustained  by  religious  feeling. 

The  enquiiy  too,  is  of  little  importance,  since,  as  I  have  shewn, 
the  omission  of  the  representatives  to  agree  in,  and  propose  a 
nomination,  only  resulted  in  a  continuance  of  the  former  officers, 
and  did  neither  abridge,  impair  or  destroy,  the  power  of  the 
meeting  to  provide  for  collecting  and  recording  their  acts  and 
proceedings. 

Let  us,  then,  return  to  the  yearly  meeting.  Here  again  it  is 
said,  a  majority  was  opposed  to  the  farther  service  of  the  former 
clerk,  and  his  continuance  contrary  to  their  will,  was  not  only 
an  oppression  of  the  few  over  the  many,  but  was  in  fact  a  disso- 
lution of  the  body.  I  am  not  able  to  say,  from  the  evidence,  if  in 
any  wise  material,  that  even  at  the  outset,  this  continuance  was 
inconsistent  with  the  wishes  of  the  greater  part  of  the  meeting. 
But  if  such  were  the  truth,  it  is  abundantly  shewn,  there  was  an 
acquiescence  in  the  measure,  even  if  an  unAvilling  one.  And  this 
acquiescence  was  brought  about  by  the  agency  and  recommen- 


29 

dation  of  some  of  those,  who  are  now  the  members  of  ihe  rival 
yearly  meeting.  The  following  facts  are  stated  by  the  witnesses. 
"A  proposition  came  from  a  leading  member,"  (Joseph  Whitall,  1 
vol.  Evid.  218.)  After  the  minute  was  read,  "one  of  their  num- 
ber expressed  his  belief  it  was  the  best  thing  the  meeting  could  do 
under  all  the  circumstances,  and  advised  them  to  submit  to  it." 
(Thomas  Evans,  1  vol.  Evid.  266.)  "  One,  and  perhaps,  there 
were  others,  stated  as  their  belief,  it  would  be  right,  and  encou- 
raged his  friends  to  accede  to  the  proposition"  for  the  continu- 
ance of  the  former  clerks.  (Joseph  Whitall,  1  vol.  Evid.  217.)  "Ef- 
forts were  made  by  persons,  who  have  since"  united  with  the 
Green  street  meeting,  "  to  induce  an  acquiescence  with  the  min- 
ute. At  length,  all  opposition  ceased."  (Samuel  Bettle,  1  vol.  Evid. 
69.)  Here,  then,  might  have  been  opposition  and  dissatisfaction 
at  the  outset.  But  it  is  clear  there  was  an  ultimate  acquiescence. 
And  it  is  too  much  for  any  one,  especially  for  those  who  took  an 
active  and  influential  part  in  bringing  about  this  result,  perhaps 
we  may  say,  actually  induced  the  peaceful  result,  to  make  it  the 
subject  of  complaint,  or  to  insist  that  the  existence  of  the  body 
was  thereby  destroyed. 

There  is  another  fact  worthy  of  much  consideration,  in  look- 
ing into  the  propriety  of  these  proceedings,  which  is,  that  no  per- 
son, save  Samuel  Bettle,  the  former  clerk,  was  proposed  for  the 
office.  The  impoitance  of  this  circumstance  in  civil  aflairs,  is 
thus  shown  in  the  recent  American  treatise  on  the  law  of  corpo- 
rations. "Where  a  majority  protest  against  the  election  of  a  pro- 
posed candidate,  and  do  not  propose  any  other  candidate,  the  mi- 
noi'ity  may  elect  the  candidate  proposed."  Angel  and  Ames  on 
Corp.  67. 

After  all  these  events,  I  can  have  no  hesitation  in  yielding  to 
the  entire  and  unqualified  conviction,  that  the  body  remained  in 
its  pristine  vigor,  and  proceeded  to  business  as  the  Philadelphia 
yearly  meeting  of  the  society  of  Friends. 

The  other  act,  whereby  it  is  said,  the  discipline  was  violated, 
the  society  separated,  and  the  constitutional  existence  of  the  year- 
ly meeting  destroyed,  is  the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  visit 
the  subordinate  meetings. 

It  would  be  very  difficult,  I  think,  to  demonstrate,  that  an  act 
of  this  nature,  if  not  warranted  by  the  discipline,  or  even  if  in- 


30 

consistent  with  it,  could  work  such  sweeping  resuhs.  The  pur- 
pose and  authority  of  this  committee,  were  simply  to  visit,  coun- 
sel and  advise  the  inferior  meetings,  with  no  power,  whatever,  to 
act  upon  or  control  the  rights  or  interests  of  any  one,  save  by 
measures  of  persuasion.  How  far  the  temper  or  motive,  which 
led  to  the  appointment  of  this  committee  may  have  been  repre- 
hensible, I  shall  examine  under  another  head.  It  is  to  the  act 
alone,  that  my  attention  is  now  directed ;  and  the  act  itself,  was, 
in  its  nature,  harmless.  Let  us,  however,  look  more  closely  into 
the  circumstances.  They  are  thus  represented  by  one  of  the  wit- 
nesses.    "  A  proposition  was  brought  from  the  women's  meeting 

to  appoint  a  committee  to  visit  the  quarterly  and  monthly 

meetings.     This  called  forth  a  great  deal  of  excitement, and 

great  opposition  was  made  to  it.  Even  some  few  of  the  *  Ortho- 
dox' party  themselves  did  not,  at  first,  appear  to  approve  of  it. 
But  there  were  others  of  that  party  that  strenuously  urged  the 
propriety  of  such  a  committee  being  appointed,  and  as  they 
seemed  to  understand  one  another  pretty  well,  apparently,  they 
pretty  soon  united  in  urging  the  measure.  It  was,  however, 
strongly  opposed  by  much  the  larger  part  of  the  meeting,  I  can- 
not undertake  to  state  the  proportions,  but  I  should  think  myself 
safe,  in  saying  two  thirds  of  those  that  spoke.  But  it  seemed  all 
of  no  avail,  ....  and  having  a  clerk  at  the  table  subject  entirely  to 
the  dictates  of  his  party,  he  made  a  minute  and  took  down  the 
names  of  the  committee  that  were  offered  to  him.  No  Friend,  I 
believe,  undertook  to  mention  a  name."  (Halliday  Jackson,  2  vol. 
Evid.  56.)  Another  witness  gives  the  following  representation. 
"  At  the  last  sitting  on  seventh  day  morning,  a  proposition  was 
introduced  from  the  women's  meeting  to  appoint  a  committee  to 
visit  the  respective  subordinate  meetings  for  their  strength  and 
encouragement.  To  this  there  was  a  decided  objection  made ; 
some  Friends  then  in  the  meeting  and  now  attached  to  each  of 
the  parties,  opposed  it.  The  doubt  of  some  was,  that  it  had  bet- 
ter not  be  decided  at  that  time ;  with  others,  there  was  a  decided 
opposition  to  the  measure.  At  this  juncture,  a  Friend  stated  to 
the  meeting  the  out  door  proceedings,  the  private  meetings,  and 
opened  the  whole  subject.  It  appeared  to  me  evidently,  to  create 
uneasiness  and  alarm  on  the  part  of  those  who  had  been  concern- 
ed in  those  meetings;  some  of  them  called  in  question  the  accu- 


.'Jl 

racy  of  the  statement  that  had  been  made,  and  seemed  disposed 
to  deny  it;  some  did  deny  it;  others,  ho\vevei%  said  that  the  gene- 
ral statement  was  correct,  and  acknowledged  it.  The  propriety 
of  appointing  a  committee  under  such  circumstances,  appeared 
so  very  obvious,  that  the  opposition,  in  a  great  measure,  ceased  for 
that  time ;  after  which  there  was  a  greater  and  more  general  ex- 
pression of  unity  with  the  measure,  than"  the  witness,  a  clerk  of 
several  year's  experience,  "  had  often,  if  ever,  seen  or  heard."  "  I 
had,"  says  the  witness,  "  been  watching  the  course  of  events,  as 
clerk  of  the  meeting,  to  know  how  to  act,  and  w  hen  all  opposi- 
tion had  ceased,  and  it  was  very  apparent  it  was  the  sense  of  the 
meeting  that  the  appointment  should  be  made,  I  rose  and  stated 
that  I  had  had  my  doubts,  when  this  proposition  was  first  brought 
in,  whether  it  was  expedient  to  adopt  it  at  that  time,  but  as  the 
servant  of  the  meeting,  it  being  manifestly  its  sense,  I  should  now 
proceed  to  make  the  minute,  and  accordinly  made  it,  and  united 
with  them  in  their  views ;  and  a  committee  was  appointed  pursu- 
ant to  the  minute."  (Samuel  Bettle,  1  vol.  Evid.  69'.)  Whatever 
diflerewce  may  be  in  these  statements  as  to  matters  of  opinion  ; 
whatever  suspicions  may  have  been  enkindled  ;  whatever  motives 
or  designs  may  be  imputed,  here  is  no  substantial  discrepancy  as 
to  points  of  fact. 

Was  then,  the  appointment  of  such  a  committee,  a  novel,  and 
therefore,  an  alarming  occurrence  ?  More  than  one  witness  tes- 
tifies, and  no  one  denies,  that  it  was  an  ancient  custom  of  the  so- 
ciety. (Samuel  Bettle,  1  vol  Evid.  70.  Halliday  Jackson,  2  vol 
Evid.  13.3.)  Had  the  meeting  power  to  make  such  appointment? 
Aside  of  the  multitude  of  unquestioned  precedents,  a  witness  says, 
"during  the  discussion  of  the  proposition,  there  was  no  sugges- 
tion of  a  doubt  of  the  right  and  power  of  the  yearly  meeting  to 
appoint  such  committee  ;  the  difference  of  opinion  was  confined 
to  the  expediency  of  making  the  appointment  at  that  time."  (Sam- 
uel Bettle,  1  vnl.  Evid.  70.)  Was  the  purpose  of  the  appointment 
laudable  ?  It  was  to  advise  and  counsel  the  inferior  meetings, 
in  the  language  of  one  of  the  witnesses,  "  for  their  strength  and 
encouragement."  And  if  the  design  was  to  prevent  schism  and 
separation,  the  end  was,  surely,  commendable ;  and  if  the  mea- 
sures taken  to  attain  it,  were  otherwise,  the  censure  should  rest 
on  the  committee,  the  agents,  and  not  on  the  meeting,  the  con- 


32 

stituents.  Was  partiality  exercised  by  the  clerk,  or  any  other 
person,  in  the  selection  of  the  committee?  No  name  which  was 
proposed  was  rejected.  Was  there  opposition  to  the  appoint- 
ment ?  Strong  and  decided  at  the  outset.  Was  there  at  length, 
an  acquiescence  1  "A  greater  and  more  general  expression  of 
unity  than  usual,"  says  one  witness.  "  The  opposition  pretty  gen- 
erally, if  not  altogether  ceasing,"  says  another  witness,  "  the 
meeting  proceeded  to  appoint."  (Joseph  Whitall,  1  vol.  Evid.  218.) 
Another  says,  "  As  all  opposition  ceased,  a  minute  was  made, 
and  the  committee  appointed."  (Thomas  Evans,  1  vol.  Evid. 
268.)  These  matters  of  fact,  are,  I  believe,  uncontradicted.  One 
of  the  witnesses,  indeed,  intimates  that  the  clerk  made  the  minute, 
being  subject  entirely  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  party.  But  the 
clerk,  himself,  whose  veracity  and  candor  are  not  only  above  re- 
proach, but  beyond  suspicion,  and  who  surely  best  knew  his  own 
motive  of  action,  says,  that  though  doubting  at  first  the  expediency 
of  the  measure,  he  made  the  minute,  as  the  servant  of  the  meet- 
ing, and  because  it  was  manifestly  their  sense  that  the  appoint- 
ment should  take  place. 

Upon  a  careful  examination  of  this  measure,  I  can  see  nothing, 
cither  in  the  act  itself,  or  in  the  manner  of  its  inception,  progress 
or  adoption,  subversive,  in  the  slightest  degree,  of  usage  or  disci- 
pline, and  least  of  all,  any  thing  of  such  vital  influence  as  to  break 
asunder  the  bonds  of  union,  disfranchise  the  meeting,  deprive  it 
of  constitutional  existence,  disrobe  it  of  ability  farther  to  execute 
its  ancient  and  appropriate  functions,  or  to  release  from  their  al- 
legiance all  those  who  previously  owed  fealty  and  submission 
to  it. 

These,  then,  are  all  the  overt  acts  of  the  meeting,  which  have 
been  made  the  subject  of  complaint.  It  would,  however,  be  a 
great  error  to  suppose  that  a  session  of  five  or  six  days  was  spent 
in  these  matters,  alone.  Much  other  important  business  was  trans- 
acted; all,  I  believe,  it  maybe  said,  of  the  usual  stated  duties 
were  discharged.  Halliday  Jackson,  gives  the  following  brief 
but  satisfactory  account  of  what  was  done.  "  The  business  of 
the  yearly  meeting  was  proceeded  in;  and  the  usual  subjects  that 
occupy  that  body,  such  as  considering  the  state  of  the  society 
from  the  answers  to  the  queries  that  are  brought  up  from  the 
different  quarterly  meetings  in  their  reports :  the  reading  of  the 


33 

minutes  of  the  meeting  for  sufferings ;  reading  reports  from  the 
committee  who  stood  charged  with  Westown  school,  and  some 
other  matters  ;  which  occupied  the  meeting  through  the  week." 
(2  vol.  Evid.  55.)  Another  witness  says,  "  All  the  business  usual- 
ly transacted  at  a  yearly  meeting,  was  gone  through  with,  and 
several  acts  consummated,  which  no  other  body  than  the  yearly 
meeting  of  Philadelphia  was  competent  to  perform.*'  (Thomas 
Evans,  1  vol.  Evid.  267.) 

Having  thus  reviewed  what  was  done,  we  are  now  to  turn  our 
attention  to  what  was  not  done  by  the  meeting ;  for  the  latter  as 
well  as  the  former,  has  been  urged  as  an  act  of  separation  and 
disfranchisement  of  the  yearly  meeting. 

Certain  subjects,  regularly  brought  before  that  body,  were  not 
acted  upon,  but  postponed.  "  When  the  reports,"  says  one  of  the 
witnesses,  "  were  taken,  or  the  subjects  contained  in  the  reports, 
from  the  different  quarterly  meetings,  which  were  considered  as 
new  matter ;  such  as  the  account  from  the  southern  quarter  res- 
pecting the  meeting  for  sufferings,  rejecting  their  representatives, 
and  an  application,  I  think,  from  Bucks'  quarter,  respecting  the 
manner  of  choosing  representatives  to  constitute  the  meeting  for 
sufferings,  together  with two  cases  that  came  up  from  Phila- 
delphia quarter They  were  all  put  by,  and  not  acted  upon, 

except  the  matter  in  relation  to  Leonard  Snowdon's  case,  which, 
if  I  remember  right,  was  returned  to  the  quarterly  meeting.  It 
seemed  to  be  pretty  generally  understood,  that  the  meeting  was 
not  in  a  qualified  state,  owing  to  the  interruptions  to  the  harmony 
that  had  taken  place,  to  enter  upon  the  investigation,  or  more  pro- 
perly, the  consideration  of  these  subjects."  (Halliday  Jackson,  2 
vol.  Evid.  55.)  It  should  be  observed  in  general,  that  these  sub- 
jects were  not  the  regular  stated  business  of  the  meeting,  but  oc- 
casional or  special.  In  this  remai'k,  I  do  not  mean  to  deny  or  de- 
tract from  their  importance,  or  the  propriety  of  their  having,  at  a 
suitable  season,  the  most  careful  attention,  but  simply  to  show 
their  real  nature  and  character ;  and  that  to  act  on  or  omit  them 
could  not  touch  any  vital  part  of  the  constitution  of  this  body.  A 
much  moi'e  important  consideration,  is  that  the  disposition  of  these 
subjects,  the  course  which  was  adopted  and  pursued  in  respect  to 
them,  was  the  united  act,  and  according  to  the  common  wish,  of 
all  parties,  of  even  those  by  whom,  or  through  whose  instrumentali- 

E 


34 

ty,  they  were  brought  before  the  meeting.  This  important  fact  is 
denied  by  no  witness,  and  is  expressly  declared  by  more  than 
one.  The  statement  of  one  I  have  just  now  given.  Farther  be- 
ing asked,  if  the  subject  from  the  southern  quarter  was  not  dis- 
missed at  the  suggestion  of  Robert  Moore,  a  member  from  that 
quarter,  he  answered,  "  When  that  subject  was  brought  before 
the  yearly  meeting,  it  was  drawing  towards  the  close  of  the  week, 
and  by  that  time  it  was  evident  the  yearly  meeting  was  not  in  a 
qualified  state  to  act  upon  any  important  subject ;  and  therefoi^e, 
that  subject,  as  well  as  two  others,  w-ere  dismissed  without  being 
much  urged  by  Friends.  I  have  not  a  clear  recollection,  but  it 
seems  to  me,  that  Robert  Moore  did  say  something  about  that 
subject  from  the  southern  quarter."  Being  asked  if  the  subjects 
from  Bucks  and  Abington  were  not  dismissed  at  the  instance  of 
John  Comly,  he  answered,  "  I  have  no  recollection  of  who  spoke 
first  on  the  subject;  John  Comly  was  sensible  of  the  state  the  year- 
ly meeting  was  in ;  and  I  can  state  what  I  have  fi'equently  heard 
John  Comly  say,  that  Samuel  Bettle  first  suggested  to  him  the 
propriety  of  having  those  subjects  dismissed,  all  those  subjects 
that  came  up  in  the  reports,  and  wished  John  Comly  to  use  his 
influence  with  his  friends  to  have  those  subjects  from  Bucks  and 
Abington  dismissed,  and  he,  Samuel  Bettle,  would  use  his  influ- 
ence with  his  friends  to  have  that  subject  passed  over  that  was 
coming  up  from  Philadelphia  quarter  ;  w  hich  subjects  it  was  ap- 
prehended, would  produce  a  great  deal  of  excitement  in  the  year- 
ly meeting,  and  which  Samuel  Bettle  feared  the  consequences  of; 
but  how  far  that  influenced  John  Comly  in  favor  of  putting  off 
those  subjects,  I  cannot  say."  (Halliday  Jackson,  2  vol.  Evid.  132.) 
Another  witness,  Abraham  Lower,  being  asked  whether  the  pro- 
positions from  Bucks  and  the  southern  quarter,  were  not  disposed 
of,  at  the  instance  of  members  from  those  quarters  respectively, 
and  who,  since  the  separation,  have  joined  that  portion  of  the  so- 
ciety with  which  he  was  in  unity,  answered,  "  I  have  no  I'ecollec- 
tion  of  the  members  of  those  quarters  making  such  a  proposition, 
but  I  should  think  it  quite  probable."  (Abraham  Lower,  1  vol  Evid. 
392.)  And  the  same  witness,  in  another  place,  testified,  "  as  that 
yearly  meeting  was  acknowledged,  not  qualified  to  enter  upon 
the  matters  brought  up  from  the  quarters,  that  case  with  others 
was  concluded  not  to  be  attended  to."    (Abraham   liower,  1  vol. 


35 

Eoid.  373.)  Samuel  Bettle  says  he  mentioned  to  John  Comly, 
"  Had  you  not  better  withdraw  the  propositions  for  a  change.... 
coming  from  Bucks,  Abington,  and  the  southern  quarter?  He  said 
he  thought  so  too,  united  with  me  fully  in  that  view,  and  said  they 
had  better  be  withdrawn,  as  it  was  not  hkely  they  would  ever  be 
adopted,  and  would  only  occasion  confusion  and  difficulty.  The 
propositions,  when  again  brought  befoi'e  the  meeting,  were  with- 
drawn by  common  consent."  (Samuel  Bettle,  1  "o/.  Evid.  69.) 
Thomas  Evans  testifies  thus,  "  Those  subjects  were  are  all  con- 
nected with,  or  had  grown  out  of  the  controversy,  respecting  the 
doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks,  and  as  there  was  a  general  understand- 
ing that  his  friends  were  about  to  separate  and  form  a  society  of 
their  own,  those  subjects  were  a^*  their  suggestion,  or  by  their  con- 
sent referred  to  the  meetings  from  which  they  had  come,  or  sus- 
pended." (Thomas  Evans,  J  vol.  Evid.  276.)  "  In  the  disposition 
of  these  subjects,  there  was  a  united  conclusion  of  the  meeting, 
after  as  full  an  expression  of  opinion  as  is  usual;  and  those  that 
took  part  in  this  business,  some  of  them  now  belong  to  the  new 
meeting,  and  others  remained  with  the  old  society,  and  participa- 
ted with  the  deliberations  of  the  meeting  which  led  to  those  con- 
clusions."  (Samuel  Bettle,  1  vol  Evid.  87.) 

Thus,  then  it  appears,  these  omissions  took  place,  certainly  with 
the  consent,  and  probably,  at  fhe  request  or  upon  the  suggestion 
of  the  very  persons  who  now  complain.  Under  such  circumstan- 
ces, this  measure,  b}-  no  means  unusual,  for  Abraham  Lower  tes- 
tified that  he  has  known  cases  brought  to  the  yearly  meeting  and 
laid  ovey  for  the  consideration  of  the  next,  does  not  afford  ground 
for  censure,  much  less  for  annihilation,  and  least  of  all  on  the  ob- 
jection of  those  who,  if  they  did  not  actually  bring  it  about,  were 
consenting  thereto. 

But,  it  is  said,  the  meeting  was  not  in  a  qualified  state  to  enter 
upon  the  consideration  of  these  subjects.  What  then  1  Was  this 
unqualified  state  peculiar  to  one  portion,  or  common  to  all  ?  Was 
the  meeting  thereby  dissolved  ?  If  wonted  harmony  ceased  to 
prevail,  if  the  minds  of  the  members  had  become  so  sensitive  on 
particular  points  that  the  introduction  of  them  would  produce  agi- 
tation and  excitement,  unfavoi*able  to  cool,  deliberate  and  dispas- 
sionate investigation  and  decision,  it  was  the  part  of  prudence,  of 
christian  forbearance,  of  enlightened  reason,  of  patience  and  meek- 


36 

ness,  and  of  that  spirit  of  peace  and  submission  which,  may  I  not 
say  without  offence  to  others,  so  eminently  characterises  this  rehgi- 
ous  denomination,  to  wait  in  humble  expectation  of  the  oversha- 
dowing of  that  Power  who  can  say,  as  well  to  the  stormy  passions 
of  the  human  breast  as  to  the  torrent  and  the  whirlwind, "  Peace, 
be  still."  But  if  such  a  state  of  things  be  a  dissolution,  no  human  so- 
ciety can  be  held  together,  and  attempts  at  order  and  government, 
instead  of  the  means  of  curbing,  and  restraining,  and  controlling 
the  wayward  passions  of  man,  do  but  afford  him  the  opportunity 
of  giving  them  extended  and  unbridled  influence  and  action. 

Besides  these  consideiations,  which  are,  I  trust,  sufficient,  con- 
clusively to  sustain  the  mt/^ting  in  its  constitutional  existence, 
there  are  some  others,  founded  o^  the  acts  and  conduct  of  the  mem- 
bers, and  of  the  component  pans  of  the  society  at  large  or  the 
subordinate  meetings,  which  incontiovertibly  evince  the  acknow- 
ledged existence  of  the  meeting,  and  its  direct  recognition  as 
such,  not  only  during  its  session,  but  after  it  had  closed  its  servi- 
ces  for  the  year. 

John  Comly,  and  I  feel  at  liberty  to  refer  to  him,  though  an 
individual,  from  his  eminent  standing  and  distinguished  charac- 
ter, both  private  and  public,  as  a  man  and  as  a.  minister,  as  well 
as  from  the  prominent  part  he  bore  in  the  transactions  which 
attended  the  separation  in  this  society.  John  Comly  acted  through- 
out the  meeting,  from  the  commencement  to  the  close,  as  its 
organ,  as  an  officer  of  the  yearly  n.^^eting  of  Philadelphia. 
He  did,  indeed,  request  to  be  excused  fvom  serving  in  that 
capacity.  But  the  fact  remains  that  he  did  serve,  and 
the  reasons  he  gave  for  being  inclined  to  withdraw,  streK^th- 
en  the  inferences  to  be  deduced  from  the  fact.  Few  mei, 
ai'e,  I  believe,  more  distinguished  for  purity,  candor,  and  every 
other  virtue.  Did  he  say,  I  cannot  serve  this  meeting,  because  I 
am  not  lawfully  and  rightly  appointed  an  assistant,  and  to  act  as 
such,  would  be,  in  me,  usurpation  and  oppi'ession  ?  Did  he  say, 
he  had  been  recorded  as  assistant  "  in  opposition  to  the  voice  of 
the  larger  part  of  the  meeting  1 "  Did  he  say,  "  the  hedge  was 
broken  down ;"  the  meeting  was  disoi'ganized,  a  revolution  had 
occurred,  there  was  no  longer  a  yearly  meeting,  but  the  society 
was  dissolved  into  its  original  elements?  Halliday  Jackson  testi- 
fies thus:  "  The  next  morning.  T  believe,  John  Comly  did  not  take 


37 

his  seat  at  the  table,  at  the  opening  of  the  meeting,  as  usual.'" 
In  this  particular,  perliaps  not  a  very  important  one,  the  witness 
aftei'wards  corrected  himself,  and  said  he  believed  Comly  took 
his  seat  at  the  table  by  the  side  of  the  clerk,  when  he  first  came 
into  the  meeting,  (2  vol.  Evid.  132)  "  but  soon  after,  he  got  up, 
and  made  a  very  forcible  appeal  to  the  yearly  meeting.  I  think 
he  regretted  the  state  and  dilemma  into  which  the  yearly  meeting 
appeared  to  be  brought ;  that  there  were  two  parties,  evidently 
two  parties,  that  appeared  to  be  irreconcilable  to  each  other, 
and  therefore  not  qualified  to  proceed  in  tlie  weighty  concerns  of 
a  yearly  meeting  under  those  trying  circumstances,  and  propo- 
sed that  the  yearly  meeting  might  adjourn,  and  Friends  endeavor 
to  get  cool  and  quiet  in  their  minds,  and  that  possibly  they  might 
be  favored  to  come  together  again  at  some  other  time,  and  be 

more  in  the  harmony And  although  John  Comly  expressed 

his  uneasiness  at  acting  as  assistant  clerk,  at  the  request  of  some 
of  his  friends,  and  some  of  the  other  party,  also,  he  submitted 
again  to  go  to  tl^^Q  table."  ( H.  Jackson,  2  vol  Evid.  54.)     Other 
witnesses  state  the  transaction,  not  differently,  though  somewhat 
more  fully.     "  On  thiid  day  morning,  immediately  after  the  open- 
ing minute  was  read,  John  Comly  rose  and  stated,  that  he  had 
mentioned  at  the  previous  sitting,  that  he  should  go  to  the  table 
in   condescension  to  the  views  of  his  friends,  and  that  it  was  in 
that  feehng  that  he  was  mw  there;  that  the  meeting  was  divided 
into  two  distinct  and  separue  parties,  and  that  under  present  cir- 
cumstances  those  parties  were  irreconcileable ;  that  each  of  these 
parties  was  striving  for  the  mastery,  ^--^  that  if  either  of  them 
gained  the  ascendancy,  it  must  be  to  the  grie\i._^  ^^^  oppres- 
sion yA  the  other.     He  therefore  proposed  that  the  met..  ^  should 
suspend  all  r^^ther  business,  and  adjourn;  but  if  the  meeting  \v. 
resolved  to  proceea  ;,.,  j^g  business,  at  all  hazards,  he  could  not 
conscientiously  act  as  the  ^.-ryan  of  a  meeting  made   up  of  such 
conflicting  parties,     and    must    .-'.^refore   request  to    be    per- 
mitted to   retire.     His  proposal   w^^   but  feebly   support- 
ed  His  party  strongly  objected  to  his  leaving  Uo^,  table,  urged 

his  continuance,  and  that  the  meeting  should  now  proceed  with 
its  business.  John  Comly  then  rose  and  stated,  that  as  he  found 
the  meeting  was  not  prepared  to  adjourn,  he  was  willing,  after 
jlie  usual  expression  of  approbation,  to  determine  the  sense  of  the 


38 

meeting  on  his  remaining  at  the  table,  so  to  continue,  and  to  pro- 
ceed with  the  business."  (Thomas  Evans,  1  vol.  Evkl.  266.)  "  He 
took  his  seat,  prepared  to  act,  and  the  business  did  progress,  he 
acting  as  usual,  without  making  any  farther  objection  on  his  part." 
(  Samuel  Bettle,  1  vol  Evid.  69.) 

Having  seen  the  conduct  of  this  very  active  and  very  useful 
member,  as  he  is  called  by  one  of  the  witnesses,  ( Abraham  Low- 
er, 1  vol.  Evid.  392.)  let  us  briefly  advert  to  that  of  the  other 
members  of  the  meeting,  who  now  belong  to  the  meeting  in 
Green  street. 

Their  urgency  that  John  Comly  should  act  as  assistant  clerk, 
and  that  the  business  of  the  meeting  should  proceed,  has  just  been 
mentioned.     "  The  yearly  meeting  of  1827,  was  entirely  conduc- 
ted as  it  had  been  on  previous  occasions."     ( Samuel  Bettle,  1  vol. 
Evid.  94.)     "  During  that  meeting,  persons  who  have  since  join- 
ed the  other  meeting,  were  appointed  on  committees,  and  took  an 
active  part  in  the  concerns  of  the  meeting  throughou^"  Ibid.     In 
the  afternoon  of  the  first  day's  meeting,  some  o(  the  friends  of 
John  Comly  "  expressed,  that  they  thoLight  the   business  of  the 
meeting  had  better  go  forward."     ( Thomas  Evans,  1  vol.  Evid. 
266.)     "During  all  the  remaining  sitring?  of  (he  yearly   meeting, 
he  [John  Comly]  and  his  friends  contiiiuea  their  attendance,  took 
part  in  its  deliberations,  assented  or  dissented  from  its  conclu- 
sions, as  opinion  led  them,  and  addressed  it  as  the  yearly  meeting 
of  Philadelphia."  ( Thomas  Evans,  "»w/.  Evid.  267.)    "During  the 
last  hour  of  the  sitting,  all  the  piyx^eedings  were  read  over,  as  is 
usual,    at  the  close  o^  ^^e  yea-iy  meeting;    no  objections  were 
made  by  any  o-^'^^  ^^Y  P^rt  of  the  minutes;  the  concluding  mi- 
nute w-»-  ^"^^  ^'^^*^''  ^^Joi""ning  the  meeting  until  the  nev*  year,  at 
^,  ^  usual  time  and  place,  if  the  Lord   permit."     ^^^^  conclusion 
IS  the  form  common  on  such  occasions.     '  ^fter  this  minute  was 
read,  a  considerable  pause  ensued  •  '"^^'^  was  no  objection  made 
to  it,  and  Friends  separat*^-'  '^<^"^i  ^ach  other  in  the  usual  man- 
ner."    (  Samuel  Bf>*''^^  1  '^(^^-  -^y«^^-  70.  Thomas  Evans,   1  vol 
Evid.  268.)     "  rhose  who  have  since  "  joined  the  Green  street 
meeting,  "were  generally  present  at  the  time  of  the  adjourn- 
ment.    The  yearly  meeting  was  as  large  and  numerous  at  the 
last  sitting,  as  at  any  sitting  during  the  week."  ( .Joseph  Whilall, 
I  vol  Evid.  218.) 


30 

One  of  the  transactions  ol'  this  meeting  deserv^es,  in  the  present 
connection,  particular  notice.  "  There  ^vas  one  matter  before  the 
meeting  which  was  of  a  humane  and  benevolent  character,  that 
Friends,  perhaps  of  both  parties,  were  pretty  much  united  in." 
(HalUday  Jackson,  2  vol.  Evid.  56.)  "  That  was  to  raise  three 
thousand  dollars  to  aid  our  brethren  in  North  Carolina,  in  remo- 
ving out  of  that  state,  many  hundred  colored  people,  eight  or  nine 
hundred  of  them  at  least,  who  were  under  the  care  of  the  Caro- 
lina yearly  meeting,  and  whose  liberties  were  in  jeopardy,  unless 
they  removed  out  of  the  state.  This  sum  it  was  proposed  should 
be  raised  by  the  different  quarterly  meetings,  in  the  usual  propor- 
tions. This  was  entirely  united  with ;  not  a  single  dissentient 
voice ;  a  great  many  expressing  their  views,  and  a  minute  was 
made,  directing  the  quarterly  meetings  to  raise  the  money  and 
pay  it  to  Elias  Yarnall,  the  treasurer  of  the  yearly  meeting.  The 
quarterly  meetings  that  compose  the  yearly  meeting,  all  assembled, 
and  in  conformity  with  the  direction  contained  in  the  extract  from 
the  yearly  meeting,  raised  their  quotas  of  the  three  thousand  dol- 
lars, and  paid  it  to  Elias  Yarnall,  the  treasurer."  (Samuel  Bettle, 
1  vol.  Evid.  70.)  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting,  bore  its  wonted 
part.  This  transaction  is  of  an  unequivocal  character.  The  re- 
solve was  an  act,  not  of  private  or  individual  benevolence,  but  of 
the  meeting  in  its  collective  capacity.  The  recommendation,  by 
the  extract,  was  such  as  that  meetmg  alone  could  perform.  All, 
we  are  told,  united  in  it.  Not  a  dissentient  voice.  It  was  re- 
ceived by  the  several  quarterly  meetings  as  an  act  of  the  yearly 
meeting,  and  carried  into  effect  as  such,  and  the  monies  were 
transmitted  to  the  treasurer ;  thereby  making,  after  the  close  of 
the  yearly  meeting,  a  direct  recognition  of  its  existence  and  au- 
thority. The  effect  of  these  circumstances  cannot  be  weakened 
by  the  "  humane  and  benevolent  character"  of  this  work  of  cha- 
rity. It  was  indeed  proof  of  a  noble  and  munificent  spirit.  But 
suppose  the  general  assembly  of  the  presbyterian  church,  or  the 
protestant  episcopal  convention,  had  sent  missives  or  extracts  to 
the  quarterly  meetings  enjoining  the  donation,  and  to  make  their 
treasurers  the  channels  of  conveyance,  would  the  call  have  been 
obeyed  ? 

I  do  not  pause  to  answer,  but  proceed  to  the  consideration  of 
another  of  the  heads  into  which  this  case  has  been  divided,  the 


40 

designs,  plans,  views,  feelings  and  acts  of  individual  members  of 
the  society,  and  under  this  head  I  shall  notice,  so  far  as  I  think  it 
necessary,  the  conduct  of  subordinate  meetings,  and  of  what  has 
been  called  the  dominant  party. 

And  here  I  make  some  general  remarks,  which  indeed  in  my 
judgment,  furnish  an  answer,  a  decisive  answer,  to  many  of  the 
conclusions  which  have  been  drawn  or  suggested  from  the  facts 
which,  on  these  points  of  the  case,  appear  in  evidence. 

First.  Our  concern  is  with  the  yearly  meeting  in  its  collective 
capacity.  Our  purpose  is  to  ascertain  whether  that  body  holds 
or  has  ceased  to  hold,  a  legal  existence;  whether  the  body  which 
met  on  Arch  street,  and  continued  and  closed  its  session  there,  in 
April,  1827,  was  the  constitutional  yearly  meeting  of  the  society? 
Whether  the  yearly  meeting  then  assembled,  performed  its  func- 
tions and  adjourned?  or  whether  that  assemblage,  at  its  opening, 
in  its  progress,  or  at  its  conclusion,  ceased  to  be  the  ancient  and 
legitimate  yearly  meeting?  Whether  the  venerable  edifice  re- 
mained, or  its  place  exhibited  only  a  deplorable  pile  of  ruins? 

Second.  As  such,  then  are  our  concern  and  purpose,  we  have 
little  to  do  with  the  causes  of  division  and  separation  about  which 
so  much  has  been  said  and  written  in  the  course  of  this  cause, 
or  with  the  division  and  separation,  except  so  far  as  they  may 
operate  on  the  legal  existence  of  the  assemblies  of  this  society. 
A  separation  has,  indeed  taken  place.  Those  who  formerly  of- 
fered their  sacrifices  on  a  common  altar,  now  no  longer  worship 
or  commune  together.  Many  who  once  went  up  to  the  ancient 
temple  have  left  it,  and  go  up  to  another  mount.  They  had  the 
right  to  do  so.  Our  civil  and  religious  liberty,  whereof  we  have 
such  just  reason  for  congratulation  and  gratitude,  left  them  free 
from  all  restraint,  save  conscience  and  the  divine  law.  We  are 
not  here  to  approve  or  condemn  them,  nor  to  enquire  into  their 
motives,  nor  to  estimate  their  strength,  or  their  purity,  or  their 
consistency  with  the  light  of  truth  whereby  all  profess  to  be  guided. 
I  wish  to  judge  no  "  man's  servant.  To  his  own  master  he 
standeth  or  falleth."  I  hope  to  be  able  to  continue  and  close  this 
investigation,  without  any  enquiry  into  religious  faith  or  opinions. 
Not  that  I  doubt  the  power  of  this  court.  For  while  I  utterly  dis- 
claim the  idea  that  this  court,  or  any  court,  or  any  human  power, 
has  the  right  to  enforce  a  creed,  or  system  of  doctrine  or  belief,  on 


41 

any  man,  or  to  require  him  to  assent  to  any  prescribed  system  of 
doctrine,  or  to  search  out  his  belief  for  the  purpose  of  restraining 
or  punishing  it  in  any  temporal  tribunal,  I  do  most  unqualifiedly 
assert  and  maintain  the  power  and  right  of  this  court,  and  of  every 
court  in  New  Jersey,  to  ascertain,  by  competent  evidence,  what 
are  the  religious  principles  of  any  man  or  set  of  men,  when,  as 
may  frequently  be  the  case,  civil  rights  are  thereon  to  depend,  or 
thereby  to  be  decided.  In  a  greater  or  less  degree  it  is  done  daily. 
Who  avail  themselves  of  it  more  frequently  than  the  society  of 
Friends,  when,  on  the  ground  of  religious  faith,  they  claim  and 
enjoy  an  exemption  from  the  use  of  an  oath  in  our  courts  of  jus- 
tice? How  far,  then,  this  separation  may  have  been  proper,  or 
whether  the  causes  of  it  will  stand  the  scrutiny,  which,  in  the  great 
day  of  account,  they  must  undergo,  we  are  not  to  resolve.  Its  ef- 
fect on  this  society  and  the  ancient  assembly,  is  the  outermost 
bound  of  our  enquiry. 

Third.  Inasmuch  as  our  research,  properly  and  almost  exclu- 
sively relates,  as  I  have  endeavoi'ed  to  shew,  to  the  yearly  meet- 
ing in  its  collective  capacity,  it  is  of  little  worth  to  enquire  into 
the  plans,  designs,  or  views  of  individuals,  or  CA-en  the  acts  of  in- 
ferior bodies,  since  these,  however  incorrect,  or  hostile,  or  inde- 
fensible, can  have  no  great  influence  on  our  main  pursuit;  for  if 
individuals  were  ambitious,  not  lowly,  arrogant,  not  humble,  domi- 
neering, not  submissive,  and  were  destitute  of  the  mild  and  for- 
bearing spirit  of  Christianity;  if  a  party  had  sprung  up,  resolved, 
as  was  said,  "  to  rule  or  to  rend;"  if  even  monthly  or  quarterly 
meetings  had  Aiolated  the  wholesome  rules  of  common  discipline, 
it  by  no  means  follows  that  the  bonds  of  the  society  were  broken, 
their  compact  dissolved,  their  discipHne  at  an  end,  their  constitu- 
tion destroyed,  and  their  existence  annihilated.  Such  a  govern- 
ment is  a  mockery,  a  pretence.  It  has  not  the  consistency  of 
even  the  mist  of  the  morning.  The  plain  and  irresistible  truth, 
that  such  a  government,  so  wholly  unadapted  to  the  condition  of 
mankind,  could  not  exist,  abundantly  proves  that  such  principles 
are  unsound.  The  basis  of  all  government,  is  the  truth  taught  by 
every  page  of  history,  that  turbulent  passions  will  arise,  that  acts 
of  violence  will  be  committed;  and  the  purpose  of  government 
is  to  control,  to  regulate,  to  repress,  to  remedy  such  passions  and 
conduct.     If  otherwise,  the  edifice  is  built  of  such  stuft'as  dreams 


42 

are  made  of,  and  is  as  unsubstantial  and  as  little  to  be  valued  as 
a  castle  in  the  aii*.  If  the  state  of  Georgia  should  disregard  the 
decision  of  the  federal  judiciary,  or  even  resist  the  executive  pow- 
er of  the  United  States,  is  the  constitution  dissolved  T  If  designs 
exist  in  South  Carolina  "  to  rule  or  to  rend,"  our  government, 
surel3%  is  not  therefore  annihilated.  It  may  be  said,  these  are 
but  parts,  small  parts  of  the  Union.  Is  it  not  in  like  manner  said, 
the  adherents  of  the  Arch  street  meeting  are  a  minority,  a  small  mi- 
nority? Gough,  in  his  history,  makes  this  judicious  and  appropriate 
remark.  "  The  independency  claimed  by  the  discontented  party,  is 
incompatible  with  the  existence  of  society.  Absolute  independen- 
cy in  society  being  a  contradiction  in  terms."  3  Gougli's  Hist.  24. 

This  view  of  the  subject  would,  I  think,  excuse  any  examina- 
tion in  detail ;  yet  to  see  these  principles  in  their  practical  applica- 
tion, as  well  as  farther  to  illustrate  the  matter,  and  to  leave,  if 
possible,  nothing  without  notice,  which  is  urged  as  bearing  on  the 
result,  I  shall  briefly  advert  to  some  of  the  prominent  topics  of 
dissatisfacton  and  complaint. 

"  The  most  prominent  cause  of"  the  division  in  the  society, 
"  of  a  public  nature,  I  consider  to  be,"  says  one  of  the  witnesses, 
(  Abraham  Lower,  1  vol  Evid.  354.)  "  the  public  opposition  or 
disrespect,  manifested  by  the  members  of  Pine  street  monthly 
meeting,  by  the  agency  and  influence  of  Jonathan  Evans,  in 
breaking  up  the  men's  meeting,  or  closing  it,  whilst  EHas  Hicks, 
was,  with  the  consent  and  approbation  of  that  monthly  meeting, 
engaged  in  the  women's  department  in  the  prosecution  of  his  re- 
ligious concern."  The  occurrence  took  place  "between  1819 
and  1821."  {Ibid.)  Now,  if  a  prominent  member  of  that  meet- 
ing was  guilty  of  rudeness  or  impropriety,  it  is  plain,  that  he 
should  have  been  individually  dealt  with,  brought  to  confess  his  er- 
ror, or  disowned.  If  the  meeting,  as  such,  acting  from  his  exam- 
ple or  under  his  influence,  were  guilty  of  censurable  disrespect, 
"  such  meeting  ought"  to  have  been  required  "to  render  an  ac- 
count thereof."  I  use,  here,  the  words  of  the  book  of  discipline, 
the  meaning  of  which  is  well  understood.  But  it  is  claiming  too 
much,  to  assert,  that  the  society  is  thereby  rent  asunder,  when 
no  measures  to  punish  the  offenders  were  ineflectually  essayed, 
when  years  have  shed  their  healing  influence  over  it ;  or  that  the 
religious  rights  and  privileges  of  all  the  other  meetings  and  mem- 


43 

bers,  within  a  large  district  of  territory  have  been  jeoparded,  and 
the  subsequent  sessions  of  the  yearly  meeting  been  unwarranted, 
and  their  acts  usurpation  and  oppression. 

Another  complaint  against  individuals,  and  against  the  meeting 
for  sufferings,  is  called  "  an  insidious  effort  to  palm  a  creed  upon 
a  society  which  never  had  a  creed."  (Abraham  Lower,  1  vol 
Evid.  369.)  The  affair  is  thus  represented  by  the  witness  who 
uses  the  expression  I  have  quoted.  "  The  minds  of  some  of  the 
members  of  that  meeting  appeared  to  be  anxious  that  something 
should  be  done  to  keep  the  minds  of  the  members  of  the  society 
from  imbibing  sentiments  which  seemed  to  be  growing  common 
among  its  members.  The  suggestion  was  made  to  get  up  a  pam- 
phlet, to  be  composed  of  extracts  from  the  Avritings  of  our  early 
Friends,  and  from  what  some  of  us  saw  of  the  disposition  of 
those  persons,  who  have  since  denominated  themselves  '  Ortho- 
dox ' we  felt  afraid  that  something  was  about  to  be  got  up, 

calculated  to  trammel  our  conscientious  rights,  and  when  the 
pamphlet  was  prepared,  a  small  number  of  us  expressed  our  dis- 
satisfaction with  the  undertaking,  and  with  the  matter  of  the  pam- 
phlet, fearing,  that  in  the  hands  of  arbitrary  men,  a  construction 
might  be  given  to  some  of  the  views  in  that  pamphlet,  that  would 
abridge  the  right  of  private  judgment  ....  there  were,  I  think,  ten 

thousand  of  them  printed but  it  was  detained,  not  published. 

And  when  the  minutes  of  the  meeting  for  sufferings  came  to  be 
read  as  usual,  in  the  yearly  meeting,  to  my  surprise,  that  pam- 
phlet appeared  to  be  recorded  on  the  minutes,  and  when  it  was 
read,  the  yearly  meeting  appeared  very  much  dissatisfied  with  it. 
It  was  pi'oposed,  and  generally  united  with,  and  so  expressed,  that 
it  should  be  expunged  from  the  minutes  of  the  meeting  for  suf- 
ferings  It  was  finally  left,  with  the  conclusion  that  it  should  not 

be  published.  It  was  considered  in  the  light  of  a  creed,  and  that 
by  this  course  of  leaving  it  on  the  minutes  of  the  meeting  for  suf- 
ferings   that  when  the  minutes  should  be  read  in  the  yearly 

meeting,  and  that  as  a  part  of  them,  that  it  would  be  adopted  by 
society,  foisted  upon  them  in  that  insidious  way."  ( Abraham 
Lower,  1  vol.  Evid.  368.)  On  the  other  side,  the  following  repre- 
sentation of  this  affair  was  made.  "  It  has  been  the  custom  of  the 
society,  whenever  any  of  its  doctrines  or  testimonies  are  misre- 
presented in  works  that  are  published,  to  endeavor  to  induce  the 


44 

editors  of  those  works  to  give  the  views  that  Friends  hold  in  re- 
spect to  the  doctrines  thus  misrepresented.  In  the  year  1822, 
there  was  a  discussion  in  a  pubUc  paper,  printed  at  Wihnington, 
conducted  under  the  signatures  of  Paul  and  Amicus ;  Paul  attack- 
ing Friends,  and  Amicus  speaking  in  their  behalf,  and  in  a  man- 
ner too  which  shewed,  that  he  was  speaking  for  the  society,  clearly. 
After  this  discussion  had  progressed  for  a  considerable  time.  Am- 
icus avowed  doctrines,  as  part  of  the  christian  faith,  which  we 
could  not  accord  with;  they  appeared  to  be  of  a  socinian  charac- 
ter, at  least.  These  essays  being  about  to  be  reprinted  in  form  of  a 
book the  meeting  for  sufferings,  in  the  regular  order  of  their  pro- 
ceedings did  —  notice  it,  by  appointing  a  committee The  com- 
mittee pursued  the  usual  course  ....  prepared  a  statement  of  what 

were  the  views  of  Friends making  extracts    from   various 

approved  authors.  The  meeting  united  with  the  report  of  the 
committee,  and  made  a  minute  on  the  subject.  The  editor  did 
publish  the  minute  in  his  paper,  but  declined  saying  any  thing  on 
the  subject  in  his  book.  The  meeting  were  under  the  necessity 
of  publishing  these  extracts  themselves,  and  did  print  an  edition 
of  it.  In  the  yearly  meeting  of  1823,  when  the  minutes  of  the 
meeting  for  sufferings  were  read,  considerable  objections  were 

made  to  that  part  of  the  proceedings The  excitement  being 

considerable,  the  meeting  adjourned  until  the  next  morning. 
When  the  meeting  assembled  the  next  morning,  it  was  proposed 
that  the  extracts  should  be  stricken  off  the  minutes  of  the  meet- 
ing for  sufferings ;  objection  was  made  to  that,  on  the  ground 
that  it  would  be  a  disavowal  of  the  doctrines  held  by  Friends, 
these  extracts  being  taken  from  the  writings  of  approved  Friends." 
....  It  was  "  proposed  to  them  to  avoid  both  difficulties  by  sim- 
ply suspending  the  publication,  not  taking  it  off^  the  minutes,  and 
not  circulating  the  pamphlets,  but  leaving  the  subject.  This  pro- 
position was  finally  acquiesced  in,  and  the  business  so  settled." 
(  Samuel  Bettle,  1  vol.  Evid.  72.)  How  far  this  explanation  may 
serve  to  shew  that  the  measure  was  in  conformity  with  ancient 
custom,  and  called  for  by  the  exigency  of  the  occasion ;  or  how 
far  it  was  an  insidious  effort  to  impose  a  creed ;  or  how  far  the 
fear  was  well  founded  that  an  attempt  was  made  to  trammel  con- 
scientious rights,  or  to  abridge  the  right  of  private  judgment,  I 
shall  not  undertake  to  decide.     It  is  enough  1o  sav.  that  if  such  a 


45 

design  existed,  if  such  an  effort  was  made,  the  design  was  frus- 
trated, the  effort  was  defeated ;  and  the  authors  of  it'met  with  a 
just,  though  silent  rebuke.  But  the  attempt  did  not  impair  the 
solidity  of  the  yearly  meeting  to  which  it  was  proposed.  I  can- 
not believe  that  the  proposal,  by  a  committee  of  congress,  of  an  un- 
constitutional or  oppressive  law,  would  annihilate  that  body,  or 
abrogate  the  constitution.  The  wildest  and  most  visionary  the- 
orists would  not,  I  believe,  venture  on  such  bold  and  untenable 
ground. 

This  matter,  of  religious  faith  and  doctrine  of  a  creed,  has  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  filled  up  a  large  portion  of  the  volumes  of  evi- 
dence befoi'e  us,  was  the  subject  of  many  remarks  in  the  argu- 
ments of  the  counsel  at  the  bar  of  this  court,  has  been  the  cause 
of  much  anxiety  and  alarm ;  and  misunderstandings  in  respect  to 
it,  have,  I  doubt  not,  had  great  influence  in  bringing  about  the  la- 
mented rupture  in  this  most  respectable  society.  I  fear  the  mat- 
ter has  been  greatly  misunderstood,  if  not  greatly  misrepresented. 
This  society  has,  and  from  the  nature  of  things,  must  have,  its 
faith  and  doctrines,  its  distinguishing  faith  and  doctrines.  They 
would,  unhesitatingly,  repudiate  the  tenets  of  Confucius,  of  Bra- 
mah,  or  of  Mohammed.  They  believe  "  in  Christ  and  him  cruci- 
fied." They  bear  both  public  and  private  testimony  of  their  faith. 
They  have  repeatedly  declared  it,  and  published  it  to  the  world. 
They  have  a  confession  of  faith,  and  a  catechism.  A  declaration  of 
faith  was  issued  on  behalf  of  the  society,  in  the  year  1693,  was 
approved  by  the  morning  meeting  of  London,  and  published  by 
the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia,  in  or  about  1730.  It  is,  I  sup- 
pose, the  same  which  is  to  be  found  in  Sewell's  History,  (2  vol. 
472.)  It  purports  to  be  "  a  declaration  of  what  our  christian  belief 
and  profession  has  been  and  is,"  and  contains  an  exposition  of  be- 
lief, in  respect  to  Jesus  Christ,  his  suffering,  death,  and  resurrec- 
tion, and  the  general  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the  final  judg- 
ment. Sewell,  (2  vol.  483.)  gives  what  he  calls  "  a  confession  of 
faith,"  which  was,  by  George  Whitehead  and  others,  presented  to 
Parliament,  in  December,  1693,  and  begins  thus,  "  Be  it  known 
to  all,  that  we  sincerely  believe  and  confess."  The  yearly  meet- 
ing, as  early  as  1701,  by  their  direction  and  at  their  expense,  cir- 
culated Barclay's  Apology,  and  his  Catechism  and  Confession  of 
Faith,  as  containing  the  doctrines  and  tenets  of  the  society  of 


46 

Friends.  What  is  a  creed  but  an  exhibition  of  faith  and  doctrine? 
Why,  then,  should  the  tocsin  now  be  sounded  among  a  people, 
who,  a  well  informed  member  tells  us,  have  more  frequently  than 
any  other  religious  community,  exhibited  to  the  world  their  prin- 
ciples and  their  faith  1  Were  the  early  Friends  less  anxious  for 
the  cause  of  truth,  less  jealous  of  encroachment  on  their  religi- 
ous freedom,  less  willing  to  bear  testimony  against  error  and  to 
suffer  for  their  testimony,  less  prompt  to  discern  insidious  efforts, 
less  fearful  of  attempts  to  trammel  conscience  or  abridge  the  right 
of  private  judgement?  The  observations  of  Robert  Barclay,  in 
a  treatise  on  church  government,  published  under  the  sanction  of 
the  society,  and  several  times  printed  by  the  yearly  meeting  of 
Philadelphia,  (Thomas  Evans,  1  vol  Evid.  304.)  are  fraught  with 
so  much  good  sen^"^,  practical  wisdom  and  genuine  piety,  that 
they  cannot  be  too  frequently  pondered  by  all,  of  every  name  or 
sect,  who  feel  an  interest  in  the  cause  of  religious  truth  and  or- 
der. "  Whether  the  church  of  Christ  have  power  in  any  cases 
that  are  matters  of  conscience,  to  give  a  positive  sentence  and  de- 
cision, which  may  be  obhgatory  upon  believers.  I  answer  affir- 
matively, she  hath ;  and  shall  prove  it  in  divers  instances,  both 
from  Scripture  and  reason  ;  for,  fii'st,  all  principles  and  articles  of 
faith  which  are  held  doctrinally,  are,  in  respect  to  those  that  be- 
lieve them,  matters  of  conscience Now,  I  say,  we  being  ga- 
thered into  the  belief  of  certain  principles  and  doctrines,  without 
any  constraint  or  wordly  respect,  but  by  the  mere  force  of  truth 
on  our  understanding,  and  its  power  and  influence  upon  our  hearts, 
these  principles  and  doctrines,  and  the  practices  necessarily  de- 
pending upon  them,  are,  as  it  were,  the  terms  that  have  drawn 
us  together,  and  the  bond  by  which  we  became  centered  into  one 
body  and  fellowship,  and  distinguished  from  others.  Now,  if  any 
one  or  more,  so  engaged  with  us,  should  arise  to  teach  any  other 
doctrine  or  doctrines,  contrary  to  these  which  were  the  ground 
of  our  being  one,  who  can  deny  but  the  body  hath  power  in  such 
a  case  to  declare,  this  is  not  according  to  the  truth  we  profess,  and 
therefore,  we  pronounce  such  and  such  doctrines  to  be  wrong,  with 
which  we  cannot  have  unity,  nor  yet  any  more  spiritual  fellow- 
ship with  those  that  hold  them Now,  this  cannot  be  account- 
ed tyranny  and  oppression Were  such  a  principle  to  be  re- 
ceived or  believed,  that  in  the  church  of  Christ  no  man  should  be 


4t 

separated  from,  no  man  condemned  or  excluded  the  fellowship 
and  communion  of  the  body,  for  his  judgment  or  opinions  in  mat- 
ters of  faith,  then  what  blasphemies  so  horrid,  what  heresies  so 
damnable,  what  doctrines  of  devils  but  might  harbor  itself  in  the 
church  of  Christ  ?  What  need  then  of  sound  doctrine,  if  no  doc- 
trine make  unsound  ? Where  a  people  are  gathered  into  the 

belief  of  the  -principles  and  doctrines  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  if  any 
of  that  people  shall  go  from  their  principles,  and  assert  things 
false,  and  contrary  to  what  they  have  already  received,  such   as 

stand  and  abide  firm  in  the  faith  have  power to  separate  from 

such,  and  to  exclude  them  from  their  spiritual  fellowship  and  com- 
munion." (Barclay's  Anarchy  of  the  Ranters,  53,  &c.)  On  the  pre- 
sent occasion  it  is  not  my  purpose,  because  for  the  determination 
of  the  controversy  before  us,  I  do  not  find  or  deem  it  necessary, 
to  enquire  whether  the  society  of  Friends  can,  or  may,  or  will,  ac- 
cording to  their  rules,  disown  a  member  who  holds  unsound  or 
heretical  doctrines,  who  should  disavow  all  the  essential  principles 
of  Christianity,  and  profess  to  believe  that  Jupiter  and  Mars  and 
Apollo,  and  the  fabled  deities  of  Olympus  are  the  true  gods,  or 
that  the  "  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  should  take  away  sins," 
but  simply  to  show  that  the  society  as  such,  have  their  faith, 
their  principles,  their  doctrines,  their  peculiar  faith,  their  dis- 
tinctive principles,  their  characteristic  doctrines,  without  which 
a  man  may  be  a  heathen,  a  mohammedan,  or  even  a  christian, 
but  cannot  be  one  of  the  people  called  Quakers.  Can  I  mis- 
take in  this,  when  I  read  such  a  passage  as  I  have  quoted  from 
Barclay,  a  standard  of  the  society,  acknowledged,  received,  re- 
vered as  such  ?  What  is  his  work  just  named,  what  is  his 
'•  Apology,"  but  an  exposure  of  doctrine,  of  principle,  of  faith, 
of  the  doctrine,  principle  and  faith  of  the  Friends,  avowed  by 
them,  pubUshed  by  them,  resorted  to  by  them  as  their  light  and 
guide  in  the  hours  of  darkness,  and  doubt,  and  difiiculty-;  in  those 
trying  hours,  which  come  to  them  as  they  come  to  all  men  of  re- 
ligious feeling,  when  the  light  within  needs  oil  and  the  flickering 
flame  of  hope  to  be  made  steady  and  brilliant.  Can  I  mistake, 
when  the  book  of  discipline,  with  uncommon  solicitude,  requires 
each  preparative  meeting  of  ministers  and  elders,  no  less  than 
three  times  in  every  year,  to  certify  to  its  quarterly  meeting,  in 
answer  to  one  of  the  queries,  "  whether  ministers  are  sound  in 


48 

word  and  doctrine?"  Soundness  is  a  relative  term,  meaning  free- 
dom from  error  and  fallacy,  and  necessarily  requiring  some  stan- 
dard whereby  the  word  and  the  doctrine  may  be  judged.  The 
doctrine  to  be  sound,  must  be  conformable  to  some  standard ;  and 
does  not  the  query,  then,  assert  that  a  standard  exists  in  this 
church ;  and  that  thereby  the  doctrine  of  the  minister,  may,  by 
his  fellow  man,  be  compared  and  tried  ?  If,  however,  I  may  mis- 
take in  thus  reverting  to  these  venerated  sources,  let  us  for  a  mo- 
ment, recur  to  the  evidence.  Abraham  Lower,  (1  vol.  Evid.  369.) 
says,  in  connection  with  this  subject,  "  The  society  believing  now 
as  they  did,  in  the  first  foundation  of  it,  that  the  bond  of  union, 
by  which  it  was  bound  together,  was  and  is, '  the  life  of  righteous- 
nes.'  "  Is  not  here  a  direct  assertion,  that  there  is  a  belief,  and 
a  belief  not  merely  of  individuals,  but  of  the  society  as  such  ?  And 
he  refers  for  an  exposition,  published  and  expressed,  to  the  author 
and  the  book  from  which  I  have  just  quoted.  In  this  connection, 
I  recur  farther,  to  the  first  document  emanating  from  Green  street, 
dated  fourth  month,  1827.  "Doctrines  held  by  one  part  of  the 
society,  and  which  we  believe  to  be  sound  and  edifying,  are  pro- 
nounced by  the  other  party  to  be  unsound  and  spurious."  Now 
I  may  be  allowed  to  ask,  why  speak  of  doctrines,  if  the  society, 
as  such,  has  no  concern  with  them  ?  How  are  doctrines  ascer- 
tained to  be  unsound  and  spurious,  or  sound  and  edifying,  if  there 
be  no  standard  of  faith  and  doctrine,  no  creed  ?  Why  should  this 
difference  or  departure  from  a  sound  belief,  be  made  a  subject  of 
complaint  ?  How  is  such  a  denunciation  to  be  reconciled  with 
the  alarm  at  a  creed,  or  the  dreaded  attempt  to  control  conscience 
and  abridge  the  right  of  private  judgment  ? 

The  meeting  for  sufferings,  by  the  rejection  of  certain  persons, 
appointed  by  the  southern  quarter  as  representatives,  are  char- 
ged to  have  given  "  reason  to  apprehend  that  they  were  deter- 
mined to  control  the  operations  of  society  according  to  their 
wills,"  and  to  have  furnished  "  evidence  of  their  having  dissolved 
the  compact,  and  so  far  as  their  own  influence  extended,  and  their 
own  acts  could  extend,  separated  itself  from  the  society."  (Abra- 
ham Lower,  1  vol  Evid.  370.) 

The  meeting  for  sufferings,  is  a  subordinate  department  for  the 
business  of  this  society,  and  especially  to  exercise  care  during  the 
intervals  between  the  sessions  of  the  yearly  meeting.    If  this  body 


49 

did  improperly  reject  the  representatives,  if  in  this  respect  they  vio- 
lated the  discipline,  it  is  very  obvious  that  their  act,  their  unconstitu- 
tional act,  could  impart  no  censure  whatever  to  the  yearly  meet- 
ing, much  less  destroy  its  existence.  But  the  design,  the  motive,  the 
ambitious  and  domineering  spirit,  which  induced  this  conduct, 
these  are,  we  are  told,  the  consuming  fires.  The  state  of  the 
case  is  shortly  thus :  The  meeting  for  sufferings  is  composed  of 
twelve  Friends  appointed  by  the  yearly  meeting,  and  also  of  four 
Friends  chosen  out  of  each  of  the  quarterly  meetings ;  and  the 
book  of  discipline  provides  that  "  in  case  of  the  decease  of  any 
Friend  or  Friends,  nominated  either  by  the  yearly  meeting  or 
quarterly  meetings,  or  of  their  dechning  or  neglecting  their  atten- 
dance for  the  space  of  twelve  months,  the  meeting  for  sufferings, 
if  it  be  thought  expedient,  may  choose  others  in  his  or  their  stead, 
to  serve  till  the  time  of  the  next  yearly  meeting,  or  till  the  places 
of  those  who  have  represented  the  quarterly  meetings  shall  be 
supplied  by  new  appointments."  (Book  of  discipline,  55.)  In  the 
year  1826,  the  southern  quarterly  meeting  resolved  to  release  two 
of  the  persons,  who  were  then  sitting  as  members  of  the  meeting 
for  sufferings  under  their appoi ntment ;  and  appointed  others.  The 
meeting  were  of  opinion  that  such  a  measure  was  not  contempla- 
ted by  the  discipline;  that  the  quarter  had  a  right  to  fill,  but  not 
to  create  vacancies;  and  that  the  only  case  which  constituted 
a  vacancy  and  called  for  a  new  appointment,  was  death,  resig- 
nation, or  neglect  of  attendance ;  neither  of  which  then  existed. 
The  meeting  for  sufferings  appointed  a  committee  to  confer  with 
the  quarterly  meeting.  The  latter  adhered  to  their  resolution.  The 
case  was  forwarded  to  the  yearly  meeting  of  1827  for  their  care, 
and  was  one  of  those,  which  as  already  mentioned,  were  postpon- 
ed. {Exhih.  JVo.  47,  2  vol  Evict  477.)  Here,  then,  appears  to  have 
been  a  difierence  of  opinion,  on  the  construction  of  a  clause  in 
the  book  of  discipline,  respecting  the  power  of  the  quarterly  meet- 
ing. Without  undertaking  to  decide  which  is  correct,  there  was 
certainly  room  enough  for  a  diversity,  and  I  can  see  no  reason, 
either  in  the  relation  of  the  witnesses,  or  in  an  examination  of  the 
controverted  clause,  to  doubt  that  the  opinion  entertained  by  the 
meeting  for  sufferings,  was  honest  and  sincere,  and  not  feigned  or 
fraudulent;  more  especially  if,  as  alleged,  it  wassanctioned  by  a 
practice  of  seventy  j'ears,  coeval  with  the  existence  of  that  meet- 


50 

ing.  Now  an  honest  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  constitutional 
powers,  could  not  •'  dissolv^e  the  compact ;"  nor  could  the  act  of 
the  meeting,  in  sending  a  committee  to  confer  with  the  quarter, 
nor  even  their  omission  to  yield  to  the  determination  of  the  quar- 
ter, until  the  matter  could  be  investigated  and  decided  by  the  ul- 
timate and  competent  tribunal,  the  yearly  meeting.  But  in  what- 
e\-er  light  we  may  view  this  matter,  it  is,  as  already  observed, 
the  act  of  the  meeting  for  suflerings,  not  of  the  yearly  meeting. 
The  course  pursued  by  the  latter,  and  the  reason  of  that  course, 
have  been  ah-eady  mentioned  and  considered.  If,  indeed,  "  this 
circumstance"'  had  produced,  as  is  said  by  one  of  the  witnesses, 
( Halliday  Jackson,  2  vol.  Evid.  48)  "  as  great  a  sensation  through- 
out the  society,  as,  perhaps,  any  other  circumstance  that  occur- 
red previously  to  the  yearly  meeting  of  1827,"  there  needs  be  no 
surprise  that  this  meeting  should  not  be  in  a  state  to  take  it  under 
consideration ;  and  the  propriety  of  a  postponement  until  time 
should  have  shed  its  calming  influence,  and  the  consistency  of  this 
course  with  the  avowed  principles  and  frequent  practice  of 
the  society  of  Friends,  are  very  manifest. 

The  remarks  which  I  have  made  on  these  cases,  selected  by 
way  of  example,  and  for  the  sake  of  illustration,  render  it  unne- 
cessary that  I  should  particularly  notice,  or  enter  at  large  into 
the  statement  or  consideration  of  others  of  the  same  general  cha- 
racter. If  the  principles  which  I  have  endeavored  to  establish, 
and  liave  applied  to  these  cases,  are  correct,  the  others  can  have 
no  greater  iiofluence  on  the  question  of  tlie  continued  existence  of 
the  yearly  meeting. 

Another  point  has  been  decidedly  taken,  on  the  part  of  those 
who  maintain  the  dissolution  and  reorganization  of  the  ancient 
j^early  meeting,  and  which  I  have  shortly,  under  this  head,  ex- 
pressed  by  the  phrase,  "  feelings  of  individuals."  It  is  more  at 
large  explained,  in  the  first  public  document  issued  from  the 
meeting  in  Green  street,  thus  ;  "  The  unity  of  this  body  is  inter- 
rupted; a  division  exists  among  us,  developing  views  which  ajv 
pear  incompatible  with  each  other,  and  feelings  averse  to  a  re- 
conciliation." Now  admitting  this  to  be  true,  and  it  may,  per- 
haps, be  rather  to  be  lamented  than  denied,  that  such  incompati- 
ble views  and  averse  feelings  existed  in  both  parts  of  this  body ; 
what  consequen';e  can  fairly,  legally,  upon  any  practical  princi- 


51 

pies  of  human  action,  resull  to  the  existence  of  the  meeting,  and 
the  connection  of  the  society  ?  What  consequence,  on  the  pa- 
cific principles  always  maintained  among  the  Friends  ?  If  time, 
charity,  a  recollection  of  the  common  sufferings  of  themselves 
and  their  ancestors  ;  if  prayer  and  supplication ;  if  the  smiles  of 
the  Great  Head  of  the  church  universal,  would  not  change  and 
reconcile  these  views,  reverse  and  soothe  these  feelings,  then 
might  those  who  thought  '*  the  period  had  fully  come  when  they 
ought  to  look  towards  making  a  quiet  retreat,"  have  justl}^  said 
to  the  others,  "  Let  there  be  no  strife,  I  pray  thee,  between  me 
and  thee,  and  between  my  herdsmen  and  thy  herdsmen,  for  we 
be  brethren  !  Separate  thyself,  I  pray  thee,  from  me ;  if  thou 
wilt  take  the  left  hand,  then  I  will  go  to  the  right ;  or  if  thou  de- 
part to  the  right  hand,  then  I  will  go  to  the  left."  But  without 
even  an  attempt  at  such  voluntary  separation,  I  can  see  no  safe 
principle,  which  will  entitle  a  portion  of  those  who  entertained  such 
views  and  feehngs,  on  account  of  their  existence  and  prevalence, 
to  disfranchise  the  rest,  to  declare  the  ancient  meeting  dissolved, 
the  society  broken  up  into  its  individual  elements,  and  then  pro- 
ceed to  erect  among  themselves  a  new  body,  and  declare  it  the 
society  of  Friends,  and  its  meeting,  not  merely  a  new  yearly 
meeting,  but  the  ancient  and  legitimate  yearly  meeting,  not  a  new 
yearly  meeting,  but  the  meeting  resettled  on  its  ancient  founda- 
tions and  })rinciples. 

If  a  portion  of  this  religious  community  found,  or  believed  to 
exist,  in  another  portion,  such  feelings  and  views  as  rendered  it 
impracticable  for  them  any  longer  to  fraternize,  any  longer 
peacefully,  harmoniously  and  profitably  to  meet  and  commune 
and  worship  together,  a  very  sutlicient  reason  in  conscience,  may 
have  been  thereby  afforded  them  to  withdraw,  to  make  "  a  quiet 
retreat ;  "  and  the  principles  of  the  government  under  which  we 
have  the  happiness  to  live,  M'ould  have  sustained  them  in  the  mea- 
sure, and  allowed  them  to  join  any  other  religious  community,  or 
form  another  association,  of  whatever  name,  for  religious  purpo- 
ses. But  the  existence  of  such  feelings  and  views,  would  not  de- 
prive those  who  remained  of  their  ancient  name,  rights  and  priv- 
ileges, if  they  retained  their  ancient  faith  and  doctrine,  maintain- 
ed their  wonted  testimonies,  and  adhered  to  their  ancient  stand- 
ards ;   nor  would  the  act  of  withdrawal  even  if  by  a  majority^ 


52 

confer  on  them  the  form  and  name,  the  power  and  authority  of 
the  ancient  community.  In  Uke  manner,  if  a  portion  discovered 
in  the  rest,  or  in  some  of  the  more  influential  members,  a  deter- 
mination "  to  rule  or  to  rend,"  although  hereby,  in  conscience,  a 
sufficient  reason  to  excuse  or  justify  a  withdrawal  might  be  found, 
yet  could  liot  even  a  majority  carry  with  them,  the  power 
and  authority  and  rights  of  the  whole,  unless  the  disposition  or 
determination  had  been  carried  out  into  overt  acts ;  for,  of  the  lat- 
ter only,  can  men  judge  or  be  judged  by  their  fellow  men,  while 
of  the  former,  he  alone  can  take  cognizance,  who  knoweth  the 
secrets  of  all  hearts. 

I  have  thus  endeavored  to  examine  and  weigh,  in  detail,  or  by 
its  principles,  every  argument  which  I  have  either  heard  or  read, 
to  prove  that  the  body  which  sat  in  Arch  street  meeting  house, 
in  April,  1827,  was  not,  or  ceased  to  be  the  Philadelphia  yearly 
meeting  of  Friends.  The  position  is  not  maintained.  At  the 
closing  minute,  that  body  was  the  ancient  legitimate  yearly  meet- 
ing as  fully  as  during  the  forenoon  sitting  of  the  first  day,  or  as 
it  had  been  at  any  point  of  time  since  the  year  1685. 

If  this  be  true,  if  the  body  which  then  closed  its  functions  for 
the  time,  in  the  usual  manner,  and  by  the  ancient  minute,  was  the 
legitimate  body,  it  is  enough  for  the  present  occasion,  nor  need 
we  look  at  its  future  history,  because  the  new  body,  which  claims 
its  power  and  place,  assembled  in  the  course  of  a  few  months, 
and  before  the  recurrence  of  the  next  annual  period.  It  may  not, 
however,  be  unpi'ofitable  to  state  in  this  connection,  as  appears 
from  the  evidence,  that  in  the  year  1828,  and  since,  annually,  at 
the  wonted  time  and  place,  meetings  have  been  held,  of  such  as 
have  thought  proper  to  attend,  of  the  acknowledged  members  of 
the  ancient  society,  who  have  not  been  disfranchised  by  any  act 
of  any  tribunal,  claiming  to  repi'esent,  the  society  of  Friends, 
or  to  possess  or  exert  any  power  of  disownment. 

If  the  body  which  thus  held  and  closed  its  session,  was  the  re- 
gular, constitutional  yearly  meeting,  it  follows,  as  an  inevitable  con- 
sequence, that  the  assembly  which  convened  in  October,  of  the  same 
year,  in  Green  street,  could  not  be,  whatever  name  it  may  have 
assumed,  the  ancient  legitimate  yearly  meeting,  the  common 
head  and  centre  of  the  subordinate  meetings,  and  of  the  society 
of  Friends  in  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania.     One  meeting  being 


53 

in  life,  another  of  the  same  powers,  rights,  and  jurisdiction,  could 
not,  according  to  the  discipline  of  the  society,  according  to  the! 
simplest  elements  of  reason,  according  to  the  immutable  rules 
of  action,  which  must  govern  and  control  all  human  assem- 
blages, of  whatever  natui'e,  and  whether  religious  or  civil, 
according,  indeed,  to  the  avowed  doctrines  of  the  pleadings 
in  this  cause,  and  the  consentaneous  declarations  of  counsel,  a 
second,  a  subsequent  meeting  could  not,  be  set  up  within  its 
bounds.  The  yearly  meeting,  having  convened  and  closed  in 
April,  1827,  could  not  again  convene,  nor  could  any  body,  pos- 
sessing its  powers  and  authorities  convene,  until  the  same  month 
of  the  succeeding  year,  1828.  The  place  of  meeting  was  fixed 
by  the  voice  of  the  yearly  meeting,  which  alone  had  the  authori- 
ty in  this  respect,  and  alone  could  change  it.  The  time  was  di- 
rected by  the  constitution  or  book  of  discipline,  to  which  we  have 
had  so  frequent  occasion  to  refer.  The  time  could,  indeed,  be  al- 
tered by  the  yearly  meeting,  but  by  it  alone.  There  was  no  ad- 
journment made  by  the  yearly  meeting,  to  a  shorter  day  than  the 
annual  period.  There  is  no  provision  in  the  constitution  for  an 
intermediate,  or  as  it  is  commonly  denominated,  a  special  meet- 
ing ;  nor  is  authority  given  to  the  clerk,  to  any  portion  of  the 
members,  or  invested  any  where  else,  to  call  such  meeting. 
Hence  it  clearly  follows,  that  according  to  the  constitution,  the 
yearly  meeting  could  not  again  assemble,  until  1828;  and  no  body, 
of  whomsoever  consisting,  or  by  whomsoever  composed,  which 
may  have  convened  in  the  intermediate  period  could,  conforma- 
bly to  constitutional  principles,  be,  the  Philadelphia  yearly  meeting. 
We  learn,  however,  from  the  evidence  before  us,  that  on  the 
nineteenth,  twentieth,  and  twenty-first  days  of  April,  during  the 
yearly  meeting,  and  after  its  close,  a  number  of  Friends  met  to- 
gether to  confer  on  the  state  of  the  society.  They  resolved  to 
meet  again,  and  accordingly  did  meet,  in  the  sixth  month  of  that 
year,  and  then  recommended  that  a  yearly  meeting  should  be 
held,  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  ensuing  month  of  October.  A 
meeting  was  held  at  the  Green  street  meeting  house.  And  this 
meeting,  is  said  by  Stacy  Decow,  in  his  answer  to  the  bill  of  in- 
terpleader, to  be  "  the  true  and  legitimate  yearly  meeting  of  Phil- 
adelphia," and  by  one  of  the  witnesses,  is  called  "  the  yearly 
meeting  reorganized,"  (Abiaham  Lower,  ]  vol  Evid.  404.)     We 


54 

are  now  to  examins  whether  it  was  so,  and  in  the  present  enqui- 
ry I  propose  to  lay  out  of  view  the  fact,  which  I  believe  has  been 
fully  demonstrated,  that  the  yearly  meeting  was  actually  in  full 
vigor  and  capacity. 

This  enquiry  is  to  be  conducted  under  two  different  aspects, 
first,  on  the  assumption  that  the  constitution  or  disciphne  of  the 
society  remained  in  force ;  and  secondly,  on  the  assumption  that 
the  hedge  was  thrown  down,  the  bond  of  union  unloosed,  the  so- 
ciety broken  up  into  its  individual  elements,  the  constitution  or 
discipline  not  providing  for  the  emergency,  or  having  crumbled 
into  dust. 

First  The  constitution  is  in  force.  The  time  and  place  of  the 
yearly  meeting  are  fixed.  April,  not  October,  is  the  one;  Arch 
street,  not  Green  street,  is  the  other.  j\either  can  be  changed 
without  the  resolution  and  authority  of  the  3'early  meeting.  No 
such  authority  was  given.  On  the  contrary,  the  resolve  of  that 
body  was,  that  the  next  yearly  meeting  should  assemble  on  the 
third  second  day  of  April,  at  Arch  street,  at  the  usual  time  and 
place,  "  if  the  Lord  permit ;"  and  these  latter  words  did  not,  as  is 
asserted  in  the  answer  of  Stacy  Decow,  constitute  "  a  contingent 

adjournment,"  nor  contemplate  "the  circumstance of  Friends 

not  being  again  permitted  to  assemble  at  that  time;"  but  were  de- 
signed to  acknowledge  their  humble  and  entire  dependance  on  the 
Great  Master  of  assemblies,  without  whose  permission  they  nei- 
ther expected  nor  wished  again  to  convene.  A  special  meeting 
of  the  yearly  meeting  is  an  anomaly,  and  unprovided  for.  Nei- 
ther the  few  nor  the  many,  have  power  given  to  them  to  convoke 
such  meeting.  If  then,  the  constitution  was  in  force,  the  meet- 
ing in  October  was  not  the  true  and  legitimate  yearly  meeting  of 
Philadelphia. 

Second.  Let  us  now  suppose  the  compact  broken,  the  constitution 
dissolved,  and  the  disjoined  members  at  liberty  to  act  f]-om  indi- 
vidual minds.  Was  the  meeting  entitled  to  the  name  it  then  as- 
sumed ?  There  are  three  insurmountable  obstacles.  First,  it  was 
not  convened  as  the  ancient  yearly  meeting.  Second,  the  mem- 
bers at  large,  the  only  constituent  parts,  or  in  other  words,  the 
individual  elements,  were  not,  and  a  portion  of  them  only  was,  in- 
vited to  assemble.  Third,  it  was  not  composed  or  constituted  as 
the  ancient  vearlv  meetinir. 


55 

First.  This  October  meeting  was  not  called,  nor  did  it  come 
together  as  the  ancient  yearly  meeting.  The  name  which  it 
thought  proper  then  to  assume,  or  which  was  then  conferred 
upon  it,  cannot  help  this  deficiency.  In  the  call  which  was  is- 
sued, the  faintest  idea  is  not  held  out  that  the  ancient  yearly  meet- 
ing w^as  to  be  convoked  ;  no  hint  is  given  that  the  ancient  meet- 
ing was  to  be  reorganised,  or  to  be  settled  on  its  ancient  founda- 
tions and  principles.  On  the  contrary,  the  idea  is  conveyed  with 
comprehensible  distinctness,  that  a  new  yearly  meeting  w^as  to 
be  formed.  The  address,  Vvrhich  bears  date  in  June,  contains,  in 
the  first  place,  an  avowal  of  the  design  or  object  in  view,  "  to  re- 
gain harmony  and  tranquility  —  by  withdrawing  ourselves,  not 
from  the  society  of  Friends,  nor  from  the  exercise  of  its  salutary 
discipline,  but  from  religious  communion  with  those  who  have  in- 
troduced, and  seem  disposed  to  continue,  such  disorders  among 
us."  There  is  nothing  here  of  remaining  in  the  ancient  yearly 
meeting,  nor  of  continuing  or  reorganising  it.     But  let  us  proceed. 

"  We  therefore have  agreed  to  propose  for  your  consideration, 

the  propriety  and  expediency  of  holding,"  what?  The  ancient  yearly 
meeting  1  No.  "  A  yearly  meeting  for  Friends  in  unity  with  us,  re- 
siding within  the  bounds  of  those  quarterly  meetings  heretofore 
represented  in  the  yearly  meeting  held  in  Philadelphia."  And  far- 
ther, "  It  is  recommended  that  the  quarterly  and  monthly  meet- 
ings which  may  be  prepared  for  such  a  measure,  should  appoint 
representatives  to  meet  in  Philadelphia  on  the  third  second  day  in 
tenth  month  next,  at  ten  o'clock  in  the  morning,  in  company  with 
other  members  favorable  to  our  views,  there  to  hold  a  yearly 
meeting  of  men  and  women  Friends,  upon  the  principles  of  the 
early  professors  of  our  name."  In  this  clause  are  several  promi- 
nent points.  First,  the  meeting  was  to  be  composed  of  represen- 
tatives from  the  monthly  as  w^ell  as  the  quarterly  meetings.  Now, 
the  ancient  yearly  meeting  had  no  representatives  from  monthly 
meetings;  certainly,  since  the  discipline,  as  adopted  and  published 
in  1806.  A  continuance  of  the  yearly  meeting  could  not  then 
have  been  contemplated,  nor  a  reorganization  of  it,  nor  a  settling 
of  it  on  its  ancient  principles.  Second,  It  was  to  be,  not  the  Phila- 
delphia yearly  meeting,  but  "  a  yearly  meeting  of  men  and  women 
Friends ;"  and  thirdly.  It  was  to  be  formed  on  the  principles  of 


56 

the  early  professors  of  our  name,  not  on  the  platform  of  the  year- 
ly meeting,  as  erected  by  the  book  of  discipline. 

Second.  This  meeting  in  October,  was  not  so  convened  as  to 
entitle  it  to  assume  the  name,  and  to  take  the  place  of  the  Phila- 
delphia yearly  meeting. 

If  the  yearly  meeting  was  dissolved,  and  the  society  brought 
back  to  a  mere  collection  of  individuals,  if  the  state  of  things  were 
such  that  individual  minds  might  now  form  anew  or  reorsanize, 
as  they  are  said  to  have  originally  formed,  it  is  a  very  clear  pro- 
position, and  not  to  be  controverted,  that  all  the  individuals  of  the 
society  ought  to  have  been  called ;  none  should  have  been  direct- 
ly or  indirectly  excluded.  Whatever  dissentions  had  risen  up, 
whatever  animosities  existed,  the  former  members  of  the  society 
remained  such,  and  those  who  did  not  meet  in  Green  street,  in 
person  or  by  representatives,  were  as  much  as  they  who  did, 
members  and  individual  elements.  All,  then,  had  a  right  to  be 
called,  all  must  be  called,  all  must  be  afforded  an  opportunity  to 
assemble,  or  no  convocation  can  be  lawful,  the  true  and  legiti- 
mate yearly  meeting  cannot  be  there.  Now,  the  recommenda- 
tion or  invitation  to  assemble,  was  not  comprehensive,  but  exclu- 
sive, not  general,  but  limited.  A  particular  class  or  description 
only  were  invited  ;  all  the  rest  were  debarred  and  shut  out.  The 
maxim,  expressio  unius  est  exchisio  alterius,  is  adopted  in  the  law, 
only  because  it  is  the  dictate  of  common  sense.  For  whom  was 
the  meeting  ?  Who  were  to  attend  ?  "  For  Friends  in  unity  with 
us."  Not  for  Friends  in  general,  not  for  the  members  of  the  an- 
cient yearly  meeting,  but  for  such  only  as  were  in  unity  wilii 
those  who  made  the  proposal.  Who  were  invited  to  send  repre- 
sentatives? All  the  monthly  and  quarterly  meetings?  By  no 
means.  "  The  monthly  and  quarterly  meetings  irhicli  may  he 
prepared  for  such  a  ?neasu7^e."  This  language  cannot  be  misun- 
derstood or  misconstrued;  and  besides  the  representatives,  for  as 
we  have  heretofore  seen,  all  who  were  led  by  inclination'or  duty, 
came  in  their  individual  capacity  to  the  yearly  meeting,  who 
were  to  meet  in  company  with  them  ?  All  the  society  ?  All  other 
members  ?  Not  so.  "  Other  members  favorable  to  our  views." 
Was  then  the  yearly  meeting  convoked?  Was  even  a  general 
meeting  of  the  society  of  Friends  called  ?  Ingenuity  cannot  per- 
vert, blindness  cannot  mistake,  such  perspicuity.    If  I  may  be  per- 


Milted  to  use  u  term,  because  it  is  so  common  as  to  be  well  under- 
stood, and  not  because  I  mean  to  make  any  offensive  application 
of  it,  the  call  was  for  the  meeting  of  a  party.  I  do  not  intend  to 
say,  a  right  party,  or  a  wrong  party,  for  the  subject  will,  in  its 
nature,  admit  of  either  qualification,  but  a  party.  And  such  a 
convocation,  of  a  portion  only  of  the  society,  the  1*681  whether  ma- 
jority or  minority,  or  however  small  in  comparative  numbers,  be- 
ing excluded,  cannot  be  the  true  and  legitimate  yearly  meeting, 
cannot  be  the  ancient  yearly  meeting  reorganised  and  settled 
again  on  its  ancient  foundations  and  principles. 

Third.  The  meeting  in  October  was  not  composed  oj"  construc- 
ted as  the  yearly  meeting. 

I  have,  incidentally,  adverted  to  this  subject,  in  showing  the  na- 
ture of  the  call,  or  who  were  invited  to  attend  the  meeting;  but  I 
now  present  it  as  a  characteristic  difference  between  this  assem- 
blage and  the  yearly  meeting.  The  yearly  meeting  is  composed 
of  members  of  two  classes^  individuals,  and  the  quarterly  meet- 
ings ;  the  latter  being  represented  by  delegates.  Such  is  not  only 
the  case  since  the  present  book  of  discipline  was  pubHshed  by  the 
society,  but  was  the  principle  of  organization  when  this  meeting 
was  first  established.  Gough,  the  historian,  says,  "  In  the  year 
1669,  it  was  found  expedient  and  agreed  upon,  to  hold  a  general 
meeting  in  London,  representative  of  the  whole  body  in  England, 
and  all  other  parts  where  any  of  the  society  were  settled,  which, 
having  been  thenceforth  held  annually,  is  denominated  the  yearly 
meeting  in  London.  This  meeting  is  constituted  of  representa- 
tives deputed  from  each  (]uarterly  meeting  in  England,  from  the 
half  yearly  meeting  in  Ireland,  and  sometimes  from  other  parts, 
yet  without  restraining  any  member  in  unity  with  the  society  from 
attending."  (2  Cough's  History,  163.)  But  the  meeting  in  Green 
street  was  composed  of  three  classes,  individuals,  quarterly  meet- 
ings, and  monthly  meetings ;  some  of  the  latter,  as  bodies.  Mount 
Holly,  Chesterfield  and  Radnor,  being  represented  by  their  dele- 
gates. {Exhib.  9.)  It  is  no  answer,  that  membersof  this  society  are  en- 
titled to  sit  in  their  individual  capacity,  and  therefore,  whether  there, 
as  individuals  or  delegates,  can  make  no  difference.  This  result 
does  not  follow.  The  representatives  alone,  it  will  be  remember- 
ed, perform  the  important  service  of  nominating  a  clerk  to  the 
meeting.     And  hence,  the  clerk  w^ho  acted  for,  and  was  appointed 


58 

by  this  meeting  was  nominated,  at  the  least  in  part,  by  the  lepre- 
sentatives  of  monthly  meetings,  who  were  irregularly  there.  And 
the  incongruity  of  this  procedure  farther  appears  from  this,  that 
the  individual  members  first  appointed,  in  their  monthly  meetings, 
the  representatives  of  those  meetings,  and  then  themselves  atten- 
ded as  individual  members.  It  is  manifest,  therefore,  the  October 
meeting  was  not  composed  as  a  yearly  meeting  should,  and  could 
only,  have  been. 

In  the  course  of  this  investigation,  it  has  repeatedly  occurred 
to  me,  and  every  time  with  increasing  force,  that  the  grounds  of 
division,  if  no  difference  of  rehgious  faith  existed,  were  of  an  infe- 
rior and  evanescent  nature.  It  seems  to  me,  though,  perhaps,  I 
am  unable,  not  being  a  member  of  the  society,  properly  to  ap- 
preciate the  matter,  that  patience,  forbearance,  brotherly  kindness 
and  charity,  the  meek  and  mild  spirit  which  has  been  believed  to 
characterize  and  adorn  the  genuine  Friend,  would,  under  the 
smiles  and  blessing  of  Providence,  have  wrought  out  a  perfect 
reconciliation,  have  brought  again  these  discordant  minds  to  the 
wonted  harmony,  and  the  unity  of  spirit  would  have  again  pre- 
vailed. If,  indeed,  a  difference  of  faith  and  doctrine  had  grown 
up  and  become  strong,  if  cither  portion  had  fallen  oft"  from  the  an- 
cient principles  of  their  church,  and  I  use  the  term,  here,  as  did  Fox 
and  Barclay  and  Penn,  the  breach  is  not  the  subject  of  surprise, 
and  it  must,  with  no  less  truth  than  regret,  be  said,  "  betw^een  us 
and  you  there  is  a  great  gulf  fixed."  In  the  pleadings  of  this 
cause,  in  the  extended  volumes  of  testimony,  and  in  the  laborious 
arguments  of  the  counsel,  I  do  not  remember  any  charge  that  the 
members  of  the  society,  who  remain  connected  with  the  Arch 
street  meeting,  have  departed  from  the  doctrines  and  principles  of 
Friends,  as  stated  by  their  founder  and  his  early  followers ;  and 
I  rejoice  that  I  have  not  been  constrained  to  enquire  into  the 
charge  of  departure,  so  freely  and  frequently  urged  against  the 
members  of  the  Green  street  meeting.  In  any  remarks  I  have 
made,  I  am  not  to  be  understood  as  asserting  or  countenancing 
such  a  charge.  Nor  do  I  mean  to  say,  they  either  had  or  had  not 
grounds  and  reasons  sufficient  to  induce  a  separation.  With  these, 
I  do  not  profess,  for  this  court,  in  the  present  cause,  to  interfere. 
It  is  with  the  legal  consequences  of  their  acts,  we  are  to  concern 


59 

ourselves.  A  separation  of  a  portion  does  not  necessarily  des- 
troy or  impair,  nor,  as  it  respects  legal  existence,  even  weaken 
the  original  institution.  This  doctrine  was  distinctly  asserted  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  this  state,  in  the  case  of  Den  against  Bolton 
and  others,  which  arose  on  the  division  in  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  of  the  United  States. 

Upon  the  whole,  I  am  brought,  by  the  most  careful,  faithful, 
and  minute  investigation  of  which  I  am  capable,  to  the  result, 
that  the  Arch  street  meeting  was,  and  the  Green  street  meeting 
was  not,  the  Philadelphia  yearly  meeting  of  the  society  of  Friends. 
We  are  now  to  look  for  the  consequences  on  the  cause  before 
the  court.  We  have  seen  that  every  preparative  meeting  within 
the  states  of  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey,  which  is,  through  and 
by  its  connecting  links,  connected  with,  and  subordinate  to,  the 
yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia,  is  a  preparative  meeting  of  the 
people  called  Quakers ;  and  any  preparative  meeting  or  assem- 
blage of  persons  calling  themselves  a  preparative  meeting,  not 
thus  connected  and  subordinate,  is  not  a  preparative  meeting  of 
that  people,  within  the  meaning  of  their  constitution  and  disci- 
pline, and  within  the  meaning  of  the  subscription  to  the  school  in 
the  present  case,  or  in  other  words,  the  instrument  whereby  the 
trust  fund  was  created.  We  have  farther  seen,  that  the  prepara- 
tive meeting  having  authority  to  appoint  the  treasurer  of  the 
school  fund,  is  the  preparative  meeting  of  Chesterfield,  connected 
with,  and  subordinate  to,  the  yearly  meeting  of  Friends  of  Phila- 
delphia. We  have  seen  that  the  preparative  meeting  whereby 
Stacy  Decow  was  appointed  treasurer,  was  not,  at  the  time  of 
that  appointment,  connected  with,  and  subordinate  to,  the  Arch 
street  meeting,  but  had  previously  disunited  itself  therefrom,  and 
connected  itself  with  the  Green  street  meeting ;  and  that,  there- 
fore, it  was  not  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  of  Friends, 
at  Crosswicks,  meant  and  mentioned  in  the  establishment  of  the 
school  fund,  and  had  not  competent  authority  to  discharge  Joseph 
Hendrickson  and  appoint  a  successor. 

There  is,  then,  no  successor  to  the  person  named  as  treasurer 
in  the  bond  and  mortgage,  and  he  has,  consequently,  the  legal 
right  to  recover  the  money. 

I  do,  therefore,  respectfully  recommend  to  His  Excellency  the 


00 

Chancellor,  to  decree  upon  this  bill  of  interpleader,  that  the  prin- 
cipal and  interest  mentioned  in  the  said  bond,  and  intended  to  be 
secured  by  the  said  mortgage,  of  right  belong,  and  are  payable  to 
the  said  Joseph  Hendrickson,  and  that  he  be  permitted  to  proceed 
on  his  original  bill  of  complaint,  or  otherwise,  agreeably  to  the 
rules  and  practice  of  the  court  of  Chancery. 

CHARLES  EWING, 


i-i'A-i 


Opinion  of  Associate  Justice  Drake. 

The  present  controversy  has  grown  out  of  the  prosecution  of 
a  certain  bond  and  mortgage,  bearing  date  the  second  day  of 
fourth  month  (April),  A.  D.  1821,  executed  by  Thomas  L.  Shot- 
well  to  Joseph  Hendrickson,  Treasurer  of  the  School  Fund  of 
Crosswicks'  Meeting,  to  secure  the  payment  of  two  thousand  dol- 
lars, with  interest,  at  six  per  cent.,  to  the  said  Joseph  Hendrick- 
son, Treasurer  as  aforesaid,  or  his  successor,  or  to  his  certain  at- 
torney, executor,  administrator,  or  assigns.  Upon  this  bond,  the 
interest  had  been  duly  paid  until  the  second  day  of  April,  A.  D. 
1827.  The  interest  from  that  date,  together  with  the  principal, 
composes  the  sum  now  in  dispute.  , 

It  is  admitted,  that  the  money,  for  which  these  securities  were 
given,  is  part  of  a  fund,  the  principal  part  of  which  was  raised 
about  the  year  1792,  by  the  voluntary  subscriptions  of  a  conside- 
rable number  of  the  members  of  the  preparative  meeting  of  the 
people  called  Quakers,  at  Crosswicks,  in  the  township  of  Chester- 
field, county  of  Burlington,  and  state  of  New  Jersey ;  for  the  pur- 
pose of  creating  an  interest,  or  annuity,  "to  be  applied  to  the  edu- 
cation of  such  children,  as  now  do,  or  hereafter  shall,  belong  to 
the  same  preparative  meeting,  wdiose  parents  are  not,  or  shall  not 
be,  of  ability  to  pay  for  their  education."     And  this  fund  was  to 


Gl 

be  ••  under  the  direction  of  tlie  trustees  of  the  said  school,"  (the 
school  then  established  at  Crosswicks)  '•  now,  or  hereafter,  to  be 
chosen  by  the  said  preparative  meeting." 

It  is  further  admitted,  that  previous  to  the  year  1827,  there 
was  but  one  preparative  meeting,  of  the  people  called  Quakers, 
at  Crosswicks  ;  although  it  was  sometimes  designated  as  the 
Chesterfield  preparative  meeting,  at  Crosswicks;  and  at  other 
times,  as  the  preparative  meeting  of  Friends,  at  Crosswicks.  It 
was  an  association,  or  meeting,  of  the  religious  society  of  Friends; 
and  it  had  the  power  to  appoint  the  trustees  of  the  school,  the 
treasurer,  and  other  officers  of  the  association. 

Joseph  Hendrickson,  one  of  the  above  named  parties,  was 
appointed  treasurer  of  this  meeting  in  1816,  and  was  continued  in 
that  office,  as  all  parties  agree,  until  the  summer  or  autumn  of 
1827,  when  disputes  arose  in  that  meeting,  and  others  with  which 
it  stood  connected,  which  resulted  in  the  separation  of  one  part 
of  its  members  from  the  other  part.  One  party,  or  division 
of  that  body,  have  continued  the  said  Joseph  Hendrickson 
in  the  office  of  treasurer.  The  other  party,  in  the  month  of  Jan- 
uary, 1828,  appointed  Stacy  Decow,  another  of  the  above  named 
parties,  to  the  same  office,  and  have  continued  him  in  that  office 
until  the  present  time. 

Both  Hendrickson  and  Decow,  claim  to  be  the  treasurer  of  the 
Chesterfield  preparative  meeting,  and,  in  that  capacity,  to  have 
the  custody  of  this  fund.  As  both  have  been  appointed,  although 
by  different  bodies,  or  different  parts  of  the  same  body,  the  title 
to  the  office  must  depend  upon  the  appointing  power ;  that  is,  the 
pi'eparative  meeting.  And  inasmuch  as  two  several  bodies  pre- 
tend, each,  to  be  the  true  preparative  meeting,  and  one  only  is 
contemplated  as  the  trustee  of  this  fund,  it  becomes  necessary  to 
inquire  which  is  the  true  preparative  meeting. 

It  appears  by  the  testimony,  that  on  the  twenty- seventh  day  of 
December,  A.  D.  1827,  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  of 
Friends  was  divided,  by  the  minority  of  the  members,  assembled 
at  that  time,  withdra\^T[ng  to  another  house,  leaving  the  majority, 
with  the  clerk,  at  the  usual  place  of  meeting.  They  continued 
their  business  there ;  and  the  minority  organized  anew,  or  held 
another  meeting,  having  appointed  a  new^  clerk  to  act  for  them. 


62 

If  this  preparative  meeting  were  an  independent  body,  acting 
without  the  influence  of  any  conventional  principle  operating  up- 
on this  point,  the  act  of  the  minority  on  this  occasion  would  not 
affect  the  powers  of  the  majority  who  remained  in  session ;  how- 
ever it  might  expose  itself,  and  the  members  composing  it,  to  disa- 
bilities. But  the  right  to  make  appointments,  and  to  exercise  the 
other  functions  of  the  preparative  meeting,  would  still  continue 
with  the  larger  party.* 

But  the  preparative  meeting  is  not  an  independent  body,  but  a 
component  part  of  the  religious  society  of  Friends.  Hence,  it  is 
necessary  to  examine  its  connection  with  the  society  of  Fi'iends, 
and  the  history  of  that  society,  so  far  as  it  influences  the  separa- 
tion in  this  preparative  meeting,  in  order  to  determine  the  ques- 
tion, which  of  these  bodies  is  the  true  preparative  meeting ;  and 
is,  of  course,  entitled  to  appoint  a  treasurer,  and  to  manage  this 
fund. 

The  society  of  Friends,  as  it  existed  at  the  time  when  this  school 
fund  was  created,  and  thence  down  to  the  year  1827,  was  an  as- 
sociation of  christians,  bound  together  by  a  distinct  government, 
peculiar  testimonies,  and,  as  one  party  contends,  by  certain  re- 
ligious doctrines,  deemed  by  them  fundamental.  For  their  gov- 
ernment, the  Friends,  residing  in  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania, 
as  early  as  the  year  1689,  estabhshed  a  general  meeting,  called  a 
yearly  meeting,  in  which  the  numerous  inferior  meetings  have 
been  represented,  and  which  all  the  members  of  the  society  have 
had  a  right  to  attend.  (  1  vol.  Evid.  333.)  That  yearly  meeting, 
soon  after  its  institution,  adopted  and  published  certain  articles  of 
government,  called,  "  Rules  of  Discipline  of  the  Yearly  Meeting 
of  Friends,  held  in  Philadelphia."  This  is  acknowledged  by  all 
the  parties  to  this  suit,  as  their  system  of  government ;  and  by 
that,  so  far  as  its  provisions  extend,  all  profess  to  be  willing  to  be 
tried.  In  this  publication,  wo  find  that  their  meetings  for  disci- 
pline are  declared  to  be ;  {Intro.  Discip.  3.)  "  First,  preparative 
meetings ;  which  commonly  consist  of  members  of  a  meeting  for 
worship ;  second,  monthly  meetings,  each  of  which  commonly 
consists  of  several  preparative  meetings ;  third,  quarterly  meetings, 

*  7  Serg.  and  Rawle,  460;  5  Binney,  485;  5  Johnson,  39;  1  Bos.  and  Pul.  229; 
2  Dessausscure,  .'ifiS;  16  Mass.  41!!. 


63 

each  of  which  consists  of  several  of  the  monthly  meetings ;  and, 
fourth,  the  yearly  meeting,  which  comprises  the  whole." 

And  the  connection  and  subordination  of  these  meetings,  are 
declared  to  be  thus  ;  {Biscip.  31.)  "  Preparative  meetings  are  ac- 
countable to  the  monthly ;  monthly,  to  the  quarterly ;  and  the 
quarterly,  to  the  yearly  meeting.  So  that,  if  the  yearly  meeting 
be  at  any  time  dissatisfied  with  the  proceedings  of  any  infeiior 
meeting ;  or  the  quarterly  meeting  with  the  proceedings  of  either 
of  its  monthly  meetings  ;  or  a  monthly  meeting  with  the  proceed- 
ings of  either  of  its  preparative  meetings ;  such  meeting  or  meet- 
ings, ought,  with  readiness  and  meekness,  to  render  an  account 
thereof,  when  required." 

This  preparative  meeting  at  Chesterfield,  was  established  at  an 
early  period.  It  was,  ever  since  its  origin,  connected  with,  and, 
in  the  sense  of  the  book  of  discipline,  subordinate  to  the  Chester- 
field monthly  meeting ;  which  was  subordinate  to  tlie  Burling- 
ton quarterly  meeting ;  and  that,  to  the  Philadelphia  yearly  meet- 
ing- 
Such  were  the  connections  sustained  by  this  preparative  meet- 
ing, at  the  commencement  of  the  year  1827.  I  said,  that  we 
must  review  the  history  of  the  whole  body,  so  far  as  it  operated 
upon  the  division  of  the  Chesterfield  meeting,  at  the  close  of  that 
year.  During  the  same  year,  a  division  took  place  in  the  Phila- 
delphia j^eai'ly  meeting,  which  was  followed  up  by  divisions  in 
all  the  subordinate  meetings,  or  at  least  all,  with  which  this  prepara- 
tive meeting  was  connected  in  its  subordination.  The  division  so 
resulted,  that  as  early  as  tenth  month,  1827,  there  were  two  year- 
ly meetings  in  existence,  (  1  vol.  Evid.  G22 ;  vol.  Evid.  457.)  each 
claiming  to  be  the  true  yearly  meeting  of  the  society  of  Friends; 
one  assembling  in  Arch  street,  and  the  other  in  Green  street, 
Philadelphia.  Which  of  these  two  meetings  was  the  head  to 
which  the  inferior  meetings  should  account,  &c.  according  to  the 
constitution  of  the  society  ?  They  could  not  both  be.  For  in 
this  case,  it  would  not  only  be  hard,  but  impossible,  for  the  infe- 
rior meetings  to  serve  two  masters.  But  which  should  it  be  ? 
Upon  this  point,  the  members  of  the  inferior  meetings  could  not 
agree.  And  hence,  a  corresponding  division  took  place  in  the 
Burlington  quarterly  meeting,  in  eleventh  month,  1827,  (  2  vol 
Evid.  207,  8.)  which  resulted  in  two  distinct  quarterly  meetings ; 


64 

one  assembling  at  the  city  of  Burlington,  and  the  other  at  Ches- 
terfield. And  a  division  also  took  place,  in  ninth  or  tenth  month, 
1827,  in  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting.  A  dispute  arising,  re- 
specting the  propriety  of"  granting  a  certificate  of  membership  to 
an  individual,  to  be  presented  to  Green  street  monthly  meeting ; 
which  dispute  M^as  founded  on  the  question,  whether  that  meeting 
still  retained  its  connection  with  the  Arch  street  yearly  meeting, 
or  had  joined  that  of  Green  street ;  the  clerk,  David  Clark,  not 
acting  in  reference  to  this  matter,  with  the  promptness  desired 
by  the  party  in  favor  of  making  the  certificate,  they  considered 
him  as  refusing,  or  at  least,  as  neglecting  to  serve  the  meeting, 
and  at  once  called  another  person,  Jediah  Middleton,  to  the  chair, 
to  serve  them  as  clerk.  (  1  vol  Emcl  337  ;  2  vol  Ibid.  284.)  Af- 
ter which,  the  two  parties  conducted  their  business  separately  •, 
the  minority  and  old  clerk,  adhering  to  the  Burlington  quarterly 
meeting,  in  connection  with  the  Arch  street  yearly  meeting,  and 
the  other  party  sending  representatives  to  the  Green  street  year- 
ly meeting.  (  2  vol  Evid.  296,  7,  323.) 

It  was  after  this  complete  division  of  the  Chestei'field  monthly 
meeting,  that  the  transaction  took  place  in  the  preparative  meet- 
ing before  noticed.  Tiiese  meetings  were  composed,  in  some 
measure,  of  the  same  persons.  The  clerk,  James  Brown,  and 
many  other  persons  there,  had  previously  manifested  their  parti- 
ality to  one  or  the  other,  of  the  great  parties  which  had  grown 
up  in  the  society,  and  to  their  respective  yearly  meetings.  In 
making  out  answers  to  the  queries,  which  were,  by  the  monthly 
meeting,  in  eleventh  month,  1827,  addressed  to  the  preparative 
meeting,  according  to  the  book  of  discipline,  page  eighty-nine, 
the  clerk  of  the  preparative  meeting  had  made  return  to  Jediah 
Middleton,  the  clerk  of  that  monthly  meeting,  connected  with  the 
Chesterfield  quarter,  and  Green  street  yearly  meeting;  (  2  vol 
Evid.  323.)  thus  acknowledging  the  meeting  of  which  he  was 
clerk,  to  be  a  branch  of  that  yearly  meeting.  He  had  also  de- 
nied the  authority  of  the  monthly  meeting,  of  which  David  Clark 
was  clerk.  (  1  vol  Evid.  325 ;  2  vol  Ibid.  323.)  Jn  eleventh 
month,  1827,  the  Burlington  (|uarter,  connected  witli  the  Arch 
street  yearly  meeting,  appointed  a  committee  to  visit  its  subordinate 
meetings.  (1  vol  Evid.  325,  6.)  On  the  twenty-seventh  of  twelith 
month    (December)    that  committee  presented  theinselves  before 


65 

the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  then  assembled.  A  commit* 
tee  also  presented  itself  Ironi  the  Burlington  quarter,  connected 
with  the  Green  street  yearly  meeting.  An  inquiry  was  made  of 
the  clerk,  or  meeting,  in  what  connection  this  preparative  meet- 
ing was  then  acting.  No  direct  reply  was  given.  It  being  man- 
ifest that  the  harmony  of  the  meeting  was  broken,  and  all  par- 
ties knowing  the  predilections  of  themselves  and  others  to  be  so 
fixed,  that  it  was  useless  to  spend  time  in  debate,  the  minority, 
wishing  to  sanction  no  proceeding  which  would  change  their 
connection  or  allegiance,  withdrew  ;  protesting  against  any  for- 
feiture of  their  rights  thereby.  Since  which,  the  two  parties 
once  composing  that  preparative  meeting,  have  each  held  its  own 
meeting,  in  subordination  to  their  respective  monthly,  quarterly, 
and  yearly  meetings,  as  before  stated. 

Much  investigation  was  made  into  the  precise  conduct  of  the 
i-espective  pai'ties,  in  effecting  these  divisions ;  but  I  do  not  re- 
gard the  particular  acts,  or  formalities,  observed  by  these  subor- 
dinate meetings,  as  of  much  consequence,  seeing  there  is  a  com- 
plete separation  of  the  society  into  two  distinct  bodies,  acting 
under  separate  governments ;  although  each  still  professes  to  ad- 
here to  the  ancient  discipline  and  worship.  Our  inquiry  now 
must  be,  whether  each  of  these  bodies  is  to  be  considered  as  the 
society  of  Friends,  contemplated  in  this  trust,  or  only  one  of 
them :  And  if  but  one,  which  is  that  one  ?  And  which  yearly 
meeting  represents  it  ?  For  if  there  be  but  one  society,  and  one 
yearly  meeting  which  answers  to  the  trust,  the  inferior  meetings 
must  follow  the  fate  of  those  to  which  they  stand  connected.  Ev- 
ery Friend  is  a  member  of  this  yearly  meeting.  It  is  the  yearly 
meeting  which  overlooks,  controls,  and  exerts  a  care  over  all 
that  are  in  connection  with  it ;  which  hears  their  appeals  in  the 
last  resort ;  which  preserves  their  uniformity  in  discipline,  and  in 
the  maintenance  of  their  peculiar  testimonies;  in  a  word,  which 
identifies  them  as  a  body  of  Friends.  And  in  order  to  determine 
whi(;h  is  the  true  preparative  meeting,  at  Crosswicks,  we  must 
ascertain  which  is  the  true  yearly  meeting  of  Friends,  held  in 
Philadelphia. 

The  yearly  meeting  was  established  in  Burlington,  in  the  year 
1681.  (1  vol.  Proud' s  Hist.  Penn.  160,  61.)  It  was  held  ahernately, 
at  Burhngton  and  Philadelphia,  from  1684,  to  1761 ;  after  which  it 

I 


66 

was  removed  entirely  to  Philadelphia,  and  was  held  there  annual- 
ly and  in  great  harmony,  until  within  the  last  ten  or  twelve  years; 
within  which  time,  jealousies  have  arisen  among  the  members, 
which  increased,  until  the  meeting  held  in  fourth  month,  1827, 
which  was  the  last  held  by  the  united  body.  The  dissensions, 
previous  to,  and  at  that  meeting,  came  to  such  a  height,  that  one 
party  withdrew,  and  took  measures  for  the  formation  of  a  new 
yearly  meeting,  as  the  other  party  insist,  or  as  they  say,  for  the 
reorganization  and  purification  of  the  old  one.  It  will  be  neces- 
sary to  look  a  little  into  particulars,  to  discover  the  character  of 
this  transaction,  and  what  should  be  its  effect  upon  the  present 
case.  And  I  should  have  observed,  that  I  use  the  word  party,  or 
parties,  "  Orthodox"  and  "  Hicksite,"  in  this  opinion,  merely  to  de- 
signate individuals,  or  bodies  of  men,  acting  together,  and  not 
with  any  reference  to  the  feeUngs,  motives,  or  principles,  upon 
which  they  may  have  acted. 

Questions  of  importance  were  expected  to  arise  at  the  yearly 
m.eeting  of  1827,  upon  which  disagreement  was  anticipated.  The 
respective  parties  made  such  preparations  for  the  approaching  bu- 
siness of  that  meeting  as  they  deemed  proper.  The  clerk,  being 
the  officer  who  collects  the  sense  of  the  meeting  on  the  questions 
submitted  to  it,  and  declares  its  decisions,  was  justly  considered  as 
holding  an  important  station,  which  neither  was  willing  to  have 
filled,  by  a  person  unfriendly  to  its  views.  The  nomination  of  a 
clerk  to  the  yearly  meeting,  M^as  the  appropriate  business  of  the 
representatives  from  the  quarterly  meetings.  (1  vol.  Evid.  68,217.) 
In  the  meeting  held  by  them  for  that  purpose,  Samuel  Bettle  and 
John  Comly  were  nominated.  Each  party  advocated  the  preten- 
Mons  of  its  favorite  candidate,  but  neither  candidate  was  agreed 
upon.  Upon  its  being  reported  to  the  yearly  meeting,  that  the 
representatives  were  unable  to  agree,  some  person  suggested,  that 
it  was  the  practice  of  the  society  for  the  old  clerk  to  act  until  a 
new  one  was  appointed.  (1  vol  Evid.  68,  218.)  In  this,  there 
was,  at  least,  a  partial  acquiescence  of  the  opponents  of  the  old 
clerk.  (1  vol.  Evid.  m,  218.  2  vol.  lb.  21,  267,  392.)  IJe  took 
his  scat  at  the  table,  and  John  Comly,  the  rival  candidate,  took 
his,  as  assistant  clerk.  The  next  morning,  the  latter  expressed  a 
repugnance  to  serve  the  meeting,  made  up,  as  he  stated,  "of  two 
irreconcileable  parties ;"  but  for  some  reason  or  other,  he  again 


67 

acquiesced,  and  acted  as  assistant  clerk  the  residue  ot  the  meet- 
ing. One  other  subject  of  dispute  occurred  towards  the  close  of 
that  meeting.  It  was  respecting  the  appointment  of  a  committee 
to  visit  the  inferior  meetings.  To  this,  there  was  considerable 
opposition,  but  the  clerk  finally  recorded  a  minute  in  favor  of  the 
appointment.  After  which,  the  meeting  adjourned,  "  to  meet  at 
the  same  time  and  place  the  next  year."  (1  vol.  Evid.  70.) 

On  the  nineteenth,  twentieth  and  twenty-first  of  April,  1827, 
and  during  the  sitting  of  the  yearly  meeting,  another  meeting  was 
held  in  Green  street,  at  which  an  address  to  the  society  of  Friends 
was  agreed  upon ;  which  was  subscribed,  by  direction  and  in  be- 
half of  said  meeting,  by  John  Comly,  and  others;  in  which  ad- 
dress, after  alluding  to  the  divided  state  of  the  society  in  doctrine 
and  in  feeUng,  and  to  measures  of  the  yearly  meeting  deemed  op- 
pressive, they  state  their  conviction,  "  that  the  period  has  fully 
come,  in  which  we  ought  to  look  towards  making  a  quiet  retreat 
from  this  scene  of  contusion."  (2  vol.  Evid.  454.)  They  adjourn- 
ed, to  meet  again  in  the  same  place  on  the  fourth  day  of  sixth 
month  (June),  1827.  At  which  second  meeting,  they  agreed  on 
and  published  a  second  address,  in  which,  after  adverting  to  dis- 
orders and  divisions  in  the  society,  and  ti'ansactions  of  the  late 
yearly  meeting,  against  the  sense,  as  they  considered,  of  the  lar- 
ger part  of  that  body,  they  add,  "  Friends  have  viewed  this  state 
of  things  among  us,  with  deep  concern  and  exercise,  patiently 
waiting  in  the  hope,  that  time  and  reflection  would  convince  our 
brethren  of  the  impropriety  of  such  a  course,  and  that  being  fa- 
vored to  see  the  evil  consequences  of  such  conduct,  they  might 
i-etrace  their  steps.  But  hitherto,  we  have  waited  in  vain.  Time 
and  opportunity  for  reflection  have  been  amply  afforded,  but  have 
not  produced  the  desirable  results.  On  the  contrary,  the  spirit  of 
discord  and  confusion  have  gained  strength,  and  to  us  there  ap- 
pears now,  to  be  no  way  to  i-egain  the  harmony  and  tranquillity 
of  the  body,  but  by  withdrawing  ourselves,  not  from  the  society 
of  Friends,  nor  from  the  exercise  of  its  salutary  discipline,  but 
from  religious  communion  with  those  who  have  introduced,  and 
seem  disposed  to  continue,  such  disorders  among  us."  The  ad- 
dress concludes,  by  proposing  for  consideration,  "  the  propriety 
and  expediency  of  holding  a  yearly  meeting  of  Friends  in  unity 
loith  us,  residing  within  the  limits  of  those  quarterly  meetijigs, 


68 

heretofore  represented  in  the  yearly  meeting  held  in  Pliiladelphia. 
on  the  third  second  day  in  tenth  month,  (then)  next."  (2  vol.  Evid. 
455,  456.)  At  which  time,  a  yearly  meeting  was  accordingly 
held,  in  Green  street,  Philadelphia ;  which  has  been  continued,  at 
the  same  place,  from  year  to  year ;  and  which  is  the  same  year- 
ly meeting,  to  which  the  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting,  of  which 
Jediah  Middleton  is  clerk,  sent  representatives,  and  to  which,  that 
meeting,  as  well  as  the  preparative  meeting  of  which  James 
Brown  is  clerk,  gave  in  their  adhesion.  (1  vol.  Evid.  50.) 

Which  of  these  yearly  meetings  represents  the  society  of  Friends 
contemplated  in  this  trust?  A  first  view  strongly  inclines  u^  to 
answer,  it  is  that  held  in  Arch  street.  That  was  regularly  ad- 
journed to  meet  at  the  same  time  and  place  next  year,  and  was 
then  held  accordingly,  and  has  been  regularly  continued  until  the 
present  time.  The  other  meeting  was  held,  first,  in  tenth  month, 
1827,  by  those  who  retreated,  or  withdrew  from  the  disorders  of 
the  other,  at  a  new  time,  in  form  at  least,  and  a  new  place.  One 
is  the  old  meeting,  and  the  other  the  new.  But  some  circumstan- 
ces attending  this  separation,  involve  the  case  in  some  degree  of 
doubt.  Those  who  formed  the  Green  street  meeting,  claim  to  be 
the  majority.  They  complain  of  various  abuses  existing  in  the 
society,  for  the  preceding  five  years ;  that  "  measures  of  a  party 
character  were  introduced"  into  some  of  their  meetings  for  disci- 
pline, and  that  "  the  established  order  of  society  was  infringed, 
by  carrying  those  measures  into  execution  against  the  judgment, 
and  contrary  to  the  voice,  of  a  larger  part  of  the  Friends  present." 
"  At  length,  the  infection  taking  a  wider  range,  appeared  in  our 
yearly  meeting,  where  its  deplorable  effects  were  equally  conspi- 
cuous. Means  were  recently  taken  therein  to  overrule  the  grea- 
ter part  of  the  representatives,  and  a  clerk  was  imposed  wpon  the 
meeting  imthout  their  concurrence  or  consent."  And  a  committee 
was  there  appointed  to  visit  the  quarterly  and  monthly  meetings 
without  the  unity  of  the  meeting,  and  contrary  to  the  solid  sense 
and  judgment  of  much  the  larger  number  of  members  in  atten- 
dance." (2  vol.  Evid.  456.) 

In  connection  with  these  complaints,  we  must  take  into  conside- 
ration some  peculiarities  in  the  mode  of  conducting  the  religious 
meetings  of  Friends.  It  is  insisted  by  the  Arch  street  party,  that 
the  members  of  a  meeting  for  discipline,  are  not  entitled  to  equal 


69 

weight  in  their  decisions ;  so  that  the  clerk,  whose  business  it  is 
to  ascertain  and  record  the  sense  of  the  meeting,  should  not  count 
the  number  of  persons  present,  and  decide  with  the  majority  of 
voices,  but  should  pay  more  attention  to  elderly,  pious,  and  expe- 
rienced men,  than  to  those  of  an  opposite  character.  (1  vol.  Evid. 
64,  184,  333.)  On  the  other  side,  it  is  insisted,  that  all  have  an 
equal  voice,  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  clerk  to  record  the  opin- 
ion of  the  majority,  in  numbers ;  or  at  least,  that  he  should  not  re- 
-/  cord  a  minute  agafnst  the  sense  of  the  majority.  (1  vol.  Evid.  43, 
2  vol.  lb.  244.)  Another  pecuharity,  is  this,  insisted  on  by  the 
Arch  street  party,  and  apparently  conformable  to  usage,  that  un- 
til  the  appointment  of  a  new  clerk,  the  old  one  is  to  act.  It  may- 
be easily  perceived,  that  the  effect  of  these  principles  combined, 
may  be  to  place  a  meeting  under  the  control  of  a  minority,  how- 
ever small,  or  even  bf  the  clerk  himself;  and  that  the  majority 
have  no  ordinary  means  of  redress,  for  they  never  can  appoint  a 
new  clerk,  and  never  can  carry  any  measure,  however  just  and 
important,  if  unreasonably  opposed.  And  if  it  be  true,  that  through 
the  operation  of  these  principles,  the  majority,  in  the  yearly  meet- 
ing of  fourth  month,  1827,  was  deprived  of  its  rights,  it  would  in- 
cline me  very  much,  to  endeavor  to  distinguish  this  case  from  that 
of  an  ordinary  secession  from  the  government  of  a  religious  so- 
ciety. 

The  complaint,  that  the  majority  was  overruled,  relates,  I  pre- 
sume, more  particularly  to  the  meeting  of  representatives  from 
the  various  quarters,  whose  business  it  was  to  nominate  a  clerk. 
But  the  proceedings  there,  may  have  had,  and  were  evidently,  by 
all  parties,  expected  to  have,  an  important  bearing  on  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  yearly  meeting.  The  facts  are  somewhat  variously 
stated  by  the  different  witnesses.  But,  in  the  view  I  shall  take  of 
this  question,  I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  make  a  minute  inqui- 
ry into  the  facts,  or  to  decide  those  which  are  controverted. 

It  appears  distinctly,  that  no  count,  or  other  certain  means  of 
ascertaining  the  majority  was  resorted  to.  The  Green  street 
party,  however,  claim  the  benefit  of  a  presumption  that  they 
were  the  majority,  arising  from  the  fact  that  they  insisted  that 
the  majority  ought  to  govern,  and  endeavored  to  take  measures 
to  ascertain  it.  (  1  vol  Evid.  372,  3. )  This  w^as  resisted  by 
the  other  party,  either  from  conscious  inferiority  of  numbers,  or 


70 

from  a  conscientious  desire,  not  to  violate  the  ancient  usage  of 
the  society,  as  to  tiie  mode  of  ascertaining  the  soHd  sense  of  a 
meeting. 

As  to  the  true  mode  of  ascertaining  the  sense  of  a  meeting,  all 
agree  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  clerk  to  collect  it,  and  it  has  been 
the  uniform  practice  in  the  society,  for  him  to  do  so,  without  le- 
sorting  to  a  formal  count,  or  division  of  parties.  (1  vol.  Evid.  64, 
330,  458.  2  vol  lb.  169,  250.)  This  society  commenced  in  per- 
secution, and  has,  heretofore,  been  distinguished  for  its  harmony. 
Believing  in  the  operation  of  the  spirit  of  truth  on  their  minds,  not 
only  in  worship,  but  in  business,  if  yiroperly  sought  for,  it  has  been 
their  practice  solemnly  to  seek  the  guidance  of  the  light  within, 
and  seldom,  or  never,  to  attempt  influence,  through  ingenious  ar- 
gument, or  noisy  declamation.  Hence,  few  have  attempted  to 
speak  on  questions.  And  these  would  natJrally  be  the  experi- 
enced and  aged.  A  few  voices  from  such  quarters,  unopposed, 
has  always  been  sufficient  to  guide  the  clerk.  If  a  contrariety  of 
views  appeared,  it  has  not  been  the  practice  to  continue  the  de- 
bate a  long  time,  but  if  one  party  did  not  soon  yield,  to  postpone 
the  subject  for  further  consideration.  Hence,  it  has  doubtless 
been  usual  for  the  clerks  to  look  to  leading  men,  principally,  in  ga- 
thering the  sense  of  the  meeting.  And  this  practice  being  ancient 
and  uniform,  and  withal  countenanced  by  some  of  their  most  re- 
spected writers,  and  connected  with  their  religious  faith,  strength- 
eiks  one  party  in  its  opinion,  not  only  that  it  is  right  for  the 
clerk  to  do  so,  but  that  he  may  carry  it  so  far,  as  to  record  a  mi- 
nute in  opposition  to  the  sense  of  the  majority  in  numbers.  (1  vol. 
Evid.  35,  04,  184,  333.)  The  other  party  insist,  on  the  contrary, 
that  the  government  in  a  yearly  meeting,  is  strictly  democratic; 
that  all  have  equal  rights,  and  an  equal  voice,  (1  vol.  Evid.  43.  2 
vol.  lb.  244. )  and  that  however  much  the  young  and  inexperi- 
enced may,  in  times  past,  have  yielded  to  the  wise  and  aged, 
through  courtesy,  or  from  other  causes,  yet,  upon  a  question  of 
strict  right,  they  are  all  equal.  This  usage,  as  it  has  existed,  has 
no  doubt,  been  salutary  in  its  influence,  and  it  is  highly  expedient 
to  preserve  it.  Indeed,  it  appears  to  be  of  almost  vital  impor-' 
tance  to  a  religious  society  like  this ;  into  which,  members  are  ad- 
mitted without  any  public  declaration  of  their  faith,  and  even  as  a 
birth  right.     And  yet  it  is  difficult  to  apply  it,  and  act  upon  it,  un- 


71 

der  such  circumstances  as  resulted  in  the  present  division.  Here 
were  two  great  parties,  dividing,  not  only  the  numbers,  but  the 
talents,  experience,  and  piety  of  this  society,  separated  on  impor- 
tant questions,  and  each  tenacious  of  its  opinions.  How  shall 
thsir  controversies  be  decided  ?  It  is  a  general  principle  relating  to 
all  associations  of  men,  that  all  the  members  of  a  meeting,  who 
have  a  right  to  a  voice  at  all,  have  a  right  to  an  equal  voice,  unless 
there  be  something  in  the  terms  of  the  association  to  vary  those 
rights.  It  is  conceded  that  all  the  members  of  this  society,  have 
the  right  to  attend  the  yearly  meeting ;  and  that  the  clerk  may 
notice  the  opinions  of  all.  (1  vol  Evid.  85,  333.)  How,  then,  is 
he  to  distinguish  between  them  ?  The  usage  to  accord  superior 
weight  to  superior  piety  and  experience,  has,  indeed,  been  uni- 
form, yet  it  seems  to  want  that  degree  of  certainty  in  its  applica- 
tion, which  an  imperative  rule  of  government  requires.  Who  is  to 
judge  which  members  have  the  most  wisdom,  or  the  greatest 
share  of  the  spirit  of  truth  ?  Each  individual  may  concede  it  to 
another,  so  as  to  yield  his  own  opinion  to  him,  if  he  will.  But 
who  shall  judge  of  it  for  a  whole  assembly  ?  Who  shall  allot 
among  a  great  many  individuals,  their  comparative  weight?  If 
any  body,  it  must  be  the  clerk.  The  result  is,  that  the  govern- 
ment if  not  a  democracy,  very  much  resembles  a  monarchy.  Nei- 
ther party  would  be  willing  to  call  it  th(3  latter,  unless  by  suppo- 
sing the  Great  Head  of  the  Church  to  preside,  and  rule  therein. 
And  this  is,  no  doubt,  the  theoretic  principle  on  this  point.  But 
who  is  to  declare  his  decisions  1  We  come  back  again  to  the 
clerk.  Will  he  always  declare  them  truly  1  To  err,  is  human. 
He  may  be  directed  by  light  from  above,  or  he  may  follow  his 
own  will.  And  this  contest,  shows  that  neither  party  had  any 
confidence  in  the  infallibility  of  the  clerk,  under  the  unusual  and 
trying  circumstances  which  existed.  The  persons  nominated  by 
the  two  parties,  were  respectable  men,  of  great  worth  and  expe- 
rience. They  had  both,  for  a  long  time,  served  the  society  very 
satisfactorily,  in  the  most  responsible  stations, — those  of  clerk,  and 
assistant  clerk.  But  both  had,  or  were  suspected  to  have,  parti- 
alities, or  wishes  of  their  own,  to  be  gratified  by  the  decisions  of 
the  yearly  meeting.  And  the  consequence  was,  that  they  were 
both  objects  of  the  greatest  distrust.  The  "  Orthodox"  did  not  be- 
lieve that  John  Comly  could  serve  the  meeting  faithfully,  and  the 


72 

"Hicksites"  were  equally  dubious  of  the  infallibility  of  Samuel 
Bettle. 

This  feature  in  the  government  of  this  society,  whatever  may 
be  its  precise  limits,  is  intimately  connected  with  their  religious 
principles  and  doctrines.  (  1  vol.  Evid.  64.)  They  believe  tb.at 
the  Head  of  the  Church,  when  properly  invoked,  will  shed  his  influ- 
ence upon  their  meetings,  and  be  "  a  spirit  of  judgment,  to  those  who 
sit  in  judgment."  Hence,  the  clerk  is  suffered  to  gather  the  feel- 
ing and  sense  of  a  meeting,  from  those  who  have  long  manifested 
a  spiritual  walk  and  conversation,  aided  by  the  agency  of  the 
spirit  of  truth,  in  his  own  mind.  But,  it  is  at  least  possible,  that  a 
meeting  should  be  unfitted,  in  a  measure,  for  this  intercourse 
with  the  spirit ;  and  that  the  clerk  may  be  influenced  by  earthly 
passions,  and  have  a  will  of  his  own  to  subserve,  as  well  as  that 
of  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church.  Should  such  a  case  arise,  it 
must  be  perceived  that  the  beauty  of  this  theory  is  marred,  and 
the  government  becomes,  not  what  it  was  intended  to  be.  May  it 
not  be  said,  that  in  such  case,  the  condition  on  which  the  power 
of  the  clerk  and  the  minority  is  founded,  is  broken  1  But  if  it  be, 
who  is  to  declare  whether  such  a  case  has,  or  has  not,  arisen  ? 
Or,  what  is  to  be  the  effect  of  an  abuse  of  this  power  ?  Or,  how 
is  it  to  be  relieved  against  ?  I  find  myself  met  by  these  questions, 
and  others,  connected  with  this  important  and  delicate  subject. 
And  supposing  that  the  decision  of  this  cause  does  not  require  an 
investigation  of  them,  I  shall  not  attempt  it.  Hence,  I  wish  not 
to  be  understood  as  intimating  any  opinion,  as  to  the  complaints 
of  the  "  Hicksite  "  party  ;  whether  there  were  really  any  good 
grounds  for  them,  or  not ;  or,  whether,  if  there  were,  it  would 
justify  the  course  jhey  took,  or  save  them  from  the  legal  conse- 
quences of  a  secession.  I  would  only  observe,  further,  on  this 
branch  of  the  subject,  that  were  this  a  i7iere  naked  trust,  to  be 
performed  immediately,  by  the  yearly  meeting,  I  think  I  should 
have  no  hesitation  to  award  it  to  the  Arch  street  meeting :  that 
being,  in  point  of  form,  at  least,  the  same  meeting  which  was  in 
existence  at  the  time  the  trust  was  created.  But  the  Chesterfield 
preparative  meeting,  with  respect  to  this  fund,  may  fairly  be  con- 
sidered, not  merely  as  a  trustee,  but  as  having  a  beneficiary  in- 
terest, inasmuch  as  the  fund  is  to  be  expended  in  the  education  of  the 
children  of  such  of  its  members  as  are  poor.     It  is  a  subordinate 


meeting,  the  pretensions  of  which  are  to  be  settled,  by  its  acknow- 
ledging one  or  the  other  of  these  yearly  meetings  as  its  head.  There 
was  some  difficulty  in  selecting  which  it  should  acknowledge;  and  if 
the  majority  have  mistaken  the  truth,  and  connected  themselves 
with  the  wrong  head,  (supposing  this  to  be  a  mere  dispute  as  to 
government,  or  discipline)  I  should  feel  veVy  reluctant  to  con- 
clude that  they  could  have  no  further  right  or  interest  in  the  fund. 
But  as  I  before  intimated,  I  mean  not  to  form,  or  express  an  opin- 
ion on  this  subject ;  for,  in  surveying  the  pleadings  and  testimony 
in  this  cause,  the  conviction  urges  itself  strongly  upon  my  mind, 
that  there  is  another  great  distinction  between  these  parties, 
which  may  be  resorted  to,  to  ascertain  which  is  the  true  society 
of  Friends,  so  far  as  the  purposes  of  this  case  require  the  deci- 
sion of  that  question.     I  mean  the  difference  in  doctrine. 

Hendrickson,  in  his  answer  to  the  bill  of  interpleader,  alledges 
that  "  the  society  of  Friends,  as  a  christian  sect,  hold  doctrines  in 
reference  to  Christianity,  which,  like  those  of  other  sects,  are  in 
some  measure,  common  to  all  christians,  and  in  other  respects, 
peculiar  to  themselves."  And  that  "  the  following  religious  doc- 
trines have  always  been  held  and  maintained  by  them,"  (1  vol, 
Evid.  30.) 

"  In  the  first  place,  although  the  society  of  Friends  have  seldom 
made  use  of  the  word  trinity,  yet  they  believe  in  the  existence 
of  the  Father,  the  Son,  or  Word,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  That  the 
Son  was  God,  and  became  flesh, — that  there  is  one  God  and  Fa- 
ther, of  whom  are  all  things — that  there  is  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
by  whom  all  things  were  made,  who  was  glorified  with  the  Fa- 
ther before  the  world  began,  who  is  God  over  all,  blessed  forever 
— that  there  is  one  Holy  Spirit,  the  promise  of  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  the  leader,  and  sanctifier,  and  comforter  of  his  people,  and 
that  these  three  are  one,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Spirit. 
That  the  principal  difference  between  the  people  called  Quakers, 
and  other  protestant  trinitarian  sects,  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  trinity,  is,  the  latter  attach  the  idea  of  individual  personage 
to  the  three,  as  what  they  consider  a  fair  logical  inference  from 
the  doctrines  expressly  laid  down  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  The 
people  called  Quakers,  on  the  other  hand,  consider  it  a  mystery 
beyond  finite,  human  conception  ;  take  up  the  doctrine  as  express- 

K 


74 

ly  laid  down  in  the  Scripture,  and  have  not  considered  themselveg 
warranted  in  making  deductions,  however  specious. 

"  In  the  second  place,  the  people  called  Quakers,  have  always 
believed  in  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  that  the  divine  and  hu- 
man nature  of  Jesus  Christ  were  united ;  that  thus  united,  he  suf- 
fered, and  that  through  his  sufferings,  death,  and  resurrection,  he 
atoned  for  the  sins  of  men.  That  the  Son  of  God,  in  the  fulness 
of  time  took  fiesh,  became  perfect  man,  according  to  the  flesh, 
descended  and  came  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  and  David;  that  be- 
ing with  God  from  all  eternity,  being  himself  God,  and  also  in 
time  partaking  of  the  nature  of  man,  through  him  is  the  goodness 
and  love  of  God  conveyed  to  mankind,  and  that  by  him  again 
man  receiveth  and  partaketh  of  these  mercies;  that  Christ  took 
upon  him  the  seed  of  Abraham,  and  his  holy  body  and  blood  was 
an  offering  and  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world. 

"  In  the  third  place,  the  people  called  Quakers,  believe  that  the 
Scriptures  are  given  by  inspiration,  and  when  rightly  interpreted 
arc  unerring  guides ;  and  to  use  the  language  adopted  by  them, 
they  are  able  to  make  wise  unto  salvation,  through  faith  which  is 
in  Jesus  Christ.  They  believe  that  the  spirit  still  operates  upon 
the  souls  of  men,  and  when  it  does  really  and  truly  so  operate,  it 
furnishes  the  primary  rule  of  faith.  That  the  Scriptures  proceed- 
ing from  it,  must  be  secondary  in  reference  to  this  primary  source, 
whence  they  proceed ;  but  inasmuch  as  the  dictates  of  the  spirit 
are  always  true  and  uniform,  all  ideas  and  views  which  any  per- 
son may  entertain  repugnant  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures, 
which  are  unerring,  must  proceed  from  false  lights.  That  such 
are  the  doctrines  entertained  and  adopted  by  the  ancient  society 
of  Friends,  and  that  the  same  doctrines  are  still  entertained  by 
the  *  Orthodox'  party  aforesaid,  to  which  party  this  defendant  be- 
longs. That  these  doctrines  are,  with  the  said  religious  society, 
fundamental ;  and  any  individual  entertaining  sentiments  and  opin- 
ions contrary  to  all,  or  any  of  the  above  mentioned  doctrines,  is 
held  not  to  be  in  the  same  faith  with  the  society  of  Friends,  or 
the  people  called  Quakers,  and  is  treated  accordingly."  And  he 
further  alleges,  that  previous  to  the  separation,  the  society  became 
divided  into  two  parties,  one  of  which  is  called  the  "  Orthodox," 
and  the  other,  the  "  Hicksite,"  and  that "  they  differ  essentially  from 
each  other  in  religious  doctrines ;"  and  especially  with  respect  to 


75 

the  doctrines  above  stated.  That  the  '  Orthodox'  party  hold  to 
them,  but  that  the  '  Hicksite'  party  do  not  adopt  and  believe  in 
them,  but  entertain  opinions  entirely  and  absolutely  repugnant 
and  contrary  thereto." 

Decow,  in  his  answer  alledges,  that  "  the  society  of  Friends  ac- 
knowledge no  head  but  Christ,  and  no  principle  of  authority  or  go- 
vernment in  the  church  but  the  love  and  power  of  God  operating 
upon  the  heart,  and  thence  influencing  the  judgment,  and  producing 
a  unity  of  feeling,  brotherly  sympathy  and  condescension  to  each 
other.  The  great  fundamental  principle  of  the  society;  the  divine 
light  and  power  operating  on  the  soul ;  being  acknowledged  by  all 
its  members  as  the  effective  bond  of  union ;  the  right  of  each  indi- 
vidual to  judge  of  the  true  meaning  of  Scripture  testimony,  rela- 
ting to  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  according  to  the  best  evidence 
in  his  own  mind,  uncontrolled  by  the  arbitrary  dictation  of  his  equal- 
ly fallible  fellow  man,  hath  been  as  well  tacitly  as  explicitly,  ac- 
knowledged by  the  society."  (1  vol.  Evid.  43,  45,  51.)  And  that  the 
rules  and  regulations  of  the  system  of  discipline,  adopted  by  the 
society,  "  relate  partly  to  the  preservation  of  a  decent  and  comly 
order  in  its  internal  polity ;  partly  to  the  observance  of  the  princi- 
ples of  morality  and  justice,  by  all  belonging  to  it;  and  partly  to 
the  maintenance  of  its  peculiar  testimonies." 

He  further  alledges,  that  "  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting 
of  Friends,  at  Crosswicks,  to  which  he  belongs,  is  the  same  Ches- 
terfield preparative  meeting  of  Friends,  at  Crosswicks,  under 
whose  care  the  said  school  fund  was  placed  by  the  contributors 
thereto,  and  are  identified  with  them  in  due  and  regular  succes- 
sion, and  are  a  part  of  the  ancient  society  of  Friends.  That  they 
believe  in  the  christian  religion,  as  contained  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  as  professed  by  ancient  Friends,  and  adhere  to  the  re- 
ligious institutions  and  government  of  the  society  of  Friends ;  and 
bear  the  same  cardinal  testimonies  to  the  whole  world,  as  are  held 
most  important  and  characteristic  in  the  said  society;  among 
which,  are  a  testimony  against  war,  a  hireling  ministry,  against 
taking  oaths,  against  going  to  law  with  brethren,  and  a  concern 
to  observe  the  golden  rule,  do  unio  all  men  as  we  would  they 
should  do  unto  us." 

It  is  perceived,  that  each  party  claims  for  the  meeting  which 
appointed  him,  an  adherence  to  the  ancient  faith  of  Friends ;  al- 


76 

though  they  differ  in  this,  that  one  points  out  certain  doctrines, 
which  he  considers  as  parts  of  that  faith,  and  that  they  are  essen- 
tial parts ;  while  the  other,  without  directly  denying  these  to  be 
the  doctrines  of  Friends,  or  that  his  party  in  the  society  hold  doc- 
trines repugnant  thereto,  contents  himself  with  alledging  that  "they 
believe  in  the  christian  religion,  as  contained  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  as  professed  by  ancient  Friends  ;"  and  their  adherence 
to  their  peculiar  testimonies,  some  of  which  are  specified ;  and 
distinctly  advances  "the  right  of  each  individual  to  judge  of  the 
true  meaning  of  Scripture  testimony,  relating  to  the  doctrines  of 
Christianity,  according  to  the  best  evidence  in  his  own  mind." 
And  by  enumerating  other  objects  of  discipline,  he  would  give  us 
to  understand  that  this  is  a  right,  the  exercise  of  which  is  beyond 
the  control  of  the  discipline  of  the  society. 

There  is  nothing  characteristic  in  "  a  belief  in  the  christian  re- 
ligion, as  contained  in  the  New  Testament."  All  sects  of  chris- 
tians, however  widely  separated,  unite  in  professing  this.  But  if 
I  can  understand  the  liberty  claimed  in  this  answer  for  the  mem- 
bers of  the  society,  it  is,  that  they  may  interpret  the  Scriptures, 
in  reference  to  the  doctrines  of  the  trinity,  and  of  the  divinity 
and  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  light  within  them  shall  direct. 

But  although  Decow,  in  his  answer,  has,  in  some  measure,  de- 
clared the  faith  of  the  party  to  which  he  belongs,  yet  he  denies 
that  this,  or  any  other  court  has  a  right  to  institute  an  inquest  in- 
to the  consciences  or  faith  of  members  of  religious  associations. 
But  can  this  denial  be  well  founded.  May  this  fund  be  divided, 
and  subdivided,  as  often  as  this  body  shall  separate.  And  parts 
of  it,  from  time  to  time,  be  diverted  from  its  declared  purpose,  and 
appropriated  to  the  education  of  the  children  of  persons  connec- 
ted with  other  religious  persuasions,  or  of  no  religion  at  all.  And 
yet  that  no  court  can  control  it  ?  Surely,  this  cannot  be.  This 
trust  can  be  exercised  only  by  a  meeting  of  the  religious  society 
of  Friends.  The  fund  can  be  used  only  in  the  education  of  the 
children  belonging  to  a  meeting  of  that  society.  And  when,  as  on 
this  occasion,  two  distinct  bodies,  which  have  separated  on  points 
of  discipline,  or  doctrine,  or  both,  come  before  the  court,  and  each 
claim  the  guardianship  and  use  of  this  fund,  as  belonging  to  the 
society  of  Friends ;  this  court  may,  surely,  inquire  into  the  bad- 
ges of  distinction,  by  which  the  society  of  Friends  are  known ; 


77 

and  if  they  are  characterized  by  estabHshed  -doctrines,  we  may 
inquire  what  tiiose  are,  and  whether  they  belong  to  one,  or  both 
of  these  parties.  This  power  is  distinctly  laid  down,  in  a  recent 
case  before  the  House  of  Lords,  in  which,  Lord  Chancellor  Eldon 
says,  "  It  is  true,  the  coui't  cannot  take  notice  of  rehgious  opinions, 
with  a  view  to  decide  whether  they  are  right  or  wrong,  but  it  may 
notice  them  as  facts,  pointing  out  the  ownership  of  property.* 

In  searching  for  the  doctrines  of  this  society,  it  is,  in  my  opin- 
ion, not  necessary  to  inquire  whether  there  were  any  differences 
of  opinion  among  their  ancient  writers,  provided  the  society  had 
for  a  long  time  before  this  fund  was  established,  promulgated  as 
a  body,  their  religious  doctrines,  and  had  settled  down  in  harmo- 
ny under  them.  It  is  a  body  of  Friends,  with  its  settled  and  known 
characteristic,  at  that  time,  which  is  contemplated  in  the  trust. 

The  society  of  Friends,  or  Quakers,  as  they  were  called  by 
their  opponents,  had  its  origin  in  England,  about  the  middle  of  the 
seventeenth  century;  a  time  much  distinguished  for  religious  in- 
quiry, in  many  parts  of  Europe.  It  was  composed  of  persons 
who  could  not  conscientiously  agree  with  the  existing  sects,  in 
their  doctrines,  modes  of  worship,  or  practices,  and  who  found 
themselves  drawn  together  by  a  unity  of  faith  and  feeling.  They 
called  themselves  christians  and  protestants,  but  appear  to  have 
required  from  those  seeking  to  become  united  with  them,  no  for- 
mal profession  of  faith,  as  a  test  of  principle  to  qualify  them  for 
admission  ;  looking  at  their  works  as  evidence  of  their  christian 
faith,  and  their  practice,  and  support  of  their  peculiar  testimonies, 
as  evidence  of  their  Quakerism.  As  they  increased  in  numbers, 
and  attracted  the  attention  of  the  civil  authorities,  their  princi- 
ples became  the  subject  of  inquiry,  and  of  misrepresentation,  by 
reason  of  which,  they  were  exposed  to  reproach  and  persecution, 
and  it  became  necessary  for  them  to  come  out  and  avow  their 
leading  doctrines  to  the  world.  This  was  done  by  their  leaders 
and  principal  men,  pi-ofessing  to  act  in  behalf  of  the  society  on 
several  occasions.  George  Fox,  who  is  generally  regarded  as 
the  founder  of  the  sect,  travelling  in  the  island  of  Barbadoes,  be- 
ing assailed  with  these  misrepresentations,  and  especially  with  this, 
that  they  denied  God,  Christ  Jesus,  and  the  Scriptures  of  truth ; 

*    1  Dow's  Rep.  1.  2  Jacob  and  Walk.  248.  3  Merrivale,  412,  419.  7  Serg. 
and  Rawle,  460.  3  Dessaussure,  557. 


78 

*'  with  some  other  Friends,  drew  up  a  paper  to  go  forth  in  the 
name  of  the  people  called  Quakers,  for  the  clearing  of  truth  and 
Friends  from  those  false  reports."  It  was  addressed  to  the  gover- 
nor of  Barbadoes,  with  his  council  and  assembly.  In  this  paper, 
the  belief  of  Friends  in  God,  the  divinity  and  atonement  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  is  most  fully  and  ex- 
phcitly  avowed.  (2  vol  Fox's  Jour.  145,  138,  316,  338,  367. 
1  vol  lb.  4,  56,  57.)  Elias  Hicks  intimates  that  George  Fox, 
for  prudential  reasons,  disguised  his  real  sentiments.  (1  vol  Evid. 
116.  2  vol  lb.  417.)  But  this  ill  agrees  with  the  history  of  Fox, 
and  I  suspect  with  the  belief  of  Friends,  as  to  his  real  charac- 
ter. Sew^ell  has  given  his  character  in  this  respect,  as  drawn 
by  a  contemporary,  in  these  words.  "  He  was,  indeed,  a  heaven- 
ly minded  man,  zealous  for  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  preserved  the 
honor  of  God  before  all  things.  He  was  valiant  for  the  truth,  bold 
in  asserting  it,  patient  in  suffering  for  it,  unwearied  in  laboring  in 
it,  steady  in  his  testimony  to  it,  immoveable  as  a  rock."  (2  vol 
SeioeWs  Hist.  464.) 

In  1689,  the  British  parliament  passed  an  act  for  exempting 
protestant  dissenters  from  certain  penalties,  by  which  the  Quakers 
had  suffered  for  many  years.  To  obtain  the  benefit  of  this  ex- 
emption, they  subscribed,  among  other  articles,  the  following  : 
"  I,  A.  B.  pi'ofess  faith  in  God,  the  Father,  and  in  Jesus  Christ, 
his  eternal  son,  the  true  God,  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  one  God, 
blessed  forevermore ;  and  do  acknowledge  the  Holy  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  to  be  by  divine  inspiration."  The 
historian  adds,  "w^enow  see  the  religion  of  the  Quakers  acknow- 
ledged and  tolerated  by  an  act  of  parliament."  (2  vol  Seivell,  447.) 

In  1693,  the  doctrines  of  the  society  being  misrepresented  by 
George  Keith  and  others,  "  they  found  themselves  obliged  to  put 
forth  their  faith  anew  in  print,  which  they  had  often  before  assert- 
ed, both  in  words  and  writing,  thereby  to  manifest  that  their  be- 
lief was  really  orthodox,  and  agreeable  with  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. (2  vol  Seidell,  471,)  And  being  charged  with  some  socin- 
ian  notions,  a  short  confession  of  faith,  signed  by  one  and  thirty 
persons,  of  which  George  Whitehead  was  one,  was,  in  Decem- 
ber following,  presented  to  the  parliament.  (  2  Sewell,  483, 
499.  1  vol  Evid.  297.  3  Gough's  Hist.  386.)  In  these  public  de- 
clarations, we  find  these  enumerated  doctrines  recognized  and 


79 

avowed.  At  that  time,  and  afterwards,  the  society  of  Friencis 
in  this  country,  acknowledged  the  London  yearly  meeting  as 
their  head,  and  appeals  were  taken  from  their  meetings  in  this 
country,  and  decided  there.  (  1  vol.  Evid.  95.  1  Proud's  Hist. 
Penn.  369.) 

Of  their  early  writers,  none  seems  to  have  been  held  in  higher 
estimation  than  Robert  Barclay.  In  his  "  Apology"*  purporting  to 
be  an  explanation  and  vindication  of  the  principles  and  doctrines 
of  the  people  called  Quakers — these  principles  are  distinctly  ex- 
hibited as  parts  of  their  faith. 

He  also  published  a  catechism  and  confession  of  faith,  which 
purport  to  contain  "  a  true  and  faithful  account  of  the  principles 
and  doctrines,  which  are  most  surely  believed  by  the  churches  of 
Christ,  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  who  are  reproachfully  called 
by  the  name  of  Quakers."'  In  these,  the  doctrines  above  mention- 
ed, are  most  fully  and  exphcitly  taught  and  professed,  f 

It  is  in  evidence,  that  Barclay's  Apology,  and  his  Catechism, 
and  Confession  of  Faith,  purporting  as  aforesaid,  have  been  pub- 
lished and  circulated  by  the  Philadelphia  yearly  meeting,  by  the 
use  of  its  own  funds,  and  as  their  minutes  express,  "  for  the  ser- 
vice of  truth,"  as  early  as  the  year  1701,  and  on  several  occa- 
sions since.  (  1  vol.  Evid.  76,  297.) 

There  is  much  other  evidence  laid  before  us,  by  documents 
and  witnesses,  confirming  that  which  I  have  thus  briefly  noticed. 
But  I  shall  pass  it  over,  merely  referring  however,  to  the  letters 
from  Elias  Hicks  to  Phebe  Willis  and  Thomas  Willis,  written  in 
1818,  in  which  he  distinctly  intimates  that  the  society's  belief  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  which  he  had  been 
taught  from  his  cradle,  whatever  was  his  belief  at  that  time,  was 
fully  in  accordance  with  the  pretensions  of  the  "  Orthodox  "  par- 
ty. (  2  vol.  Evid.  419,  420,  421.) 

I  think  it  sufficiently  established,  that  these  doctrines  have  been 
avowedly  and  generally  held  by  the  society.  And,  indeed,  they 
have  treated  the  Scriptures  with  a  degree  of  reverence,  uncom- 
mon, even  among  christians.     Feeling  it  presumptuous  to  specu- 

*  See  ninth  edition,  published  at  Philadelphia  in  1775,  pages  86,  139,  141, 
185,  203, 204,  211,  226,  572,  573,  574.  Also  in  his  "  Anarchy  of  the  Ranters," 
pages,  1,2,3,  29,30. 

t  See  page6  2,5,  6,  7,8,  9,10, 11,  12,  13,  104,  106,107,108,111,134. 


80 

late  upon  what  is  obscure,  they  have,  in  doctrinal  matters,  adopt- 
ed its  expHcit  language,  but  rejected  the  ingenious  deductions  of 
men ;  they  have  been  unwilling  to  be  wise  above  what  is  writ- 
ten. And  in  matters  of  practice,  they  have  endeavored  to  apply 
its  precepts  literally ;  and  this  is  the  foundation  of  their  peculiar 
testimonies. 

But  are  these  doctrines  essential?     There  is  strong  evidence  of 
this,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  doctrines  themselves.     When  men 
form  themselves  into  associations  for  the  worship  of  God,  some 
correspondence  of  views,  as  to  the  nature  and  attributes  of  the 
being  who  is  the  object  of  worship,  is  necessary.     The  differ- 
ence between  the  pagan,  the  mahometan,  the  christian,  and  the 
jew,  is  radical,  and  irreconcileable.     The  two  latter  worship  the 
same  God  ,•  but  one  approaches  him  through  a  mediator,  whom 
the  other  regards  as  an  impostor;  and  hence,  there  can  be  no 
communion  or  fellowship   between    them.     Christians  have  be- 
come separated  into  various  sects,  differing  more  or  less  in  their 
doctrines.     In  looking  at  the  history  of  these  sects,  I  am  by  no 
means  convinced  that  there  was,  in  the  nature  of  things,  any  ne- 
cessity for  all  the  divisions  which  have  taken  place.     Many  of 
the  controversies  in  the  church,  have  doubtless  arisen  from  mi- 
nute  and   subtle  distinctions  in  doctrine,  which  have  been  main- 
tained, not  only  with  much  ingenuity,  but  with  much  obstinacy 
and  pride ;  and  which,   by  this  mixture  of  human  frailty,  have 
been  the  cause  of  angry,  and  often  bloody   dissentions.     And 
whenever  the  civil  government,  or  the  prevailing  party,  in  a  re- 
ligious society,  have  formed  creeds,  and  required  professions  of 
faith,  descending  to  these  minute  points,  it  has,  necessai'ily  caused 
the  separation  of  those,  or  at  least  the  honest  part  of  them,  who 
could  not  believe  up  to  the  precise  line  of  orthodoxy.     Hence,  no 
doubt,  many   separations  have  taken  place   in   churches,  upon 
points  of  doctrine,  which  would  never  have  disturbed  the  harmo- 
ny of  the  association,  had  not  public  professions  of  faith  been  re- 
quired, descending  into  minute  and  non-essential  particulars.     In 
these  days  many  christians  find  themselves  able  to  unite  in  wor- 
ship with  those  of  different  denominations,  and  to  forget  the  line 
of  separation  between  them.       But,  although  unnecessary  divi- 
sions have  taken  place,  it  by  no  means  follows,  that  there  are  not 
some  points  of  faith,  which  must  be  agreed  in,  in  order  that  a  re 


81 

ligious  society  may  harmonize  in  their  public  worship  and  pri- 
vate intercourse,  so  as  to  experience  the  benefits  of  associating 
together.  Of  this  description,  is  the  behef  in  the  atonement  and 
divine  nature  of  Jesus  Christ.  He,  who  considers  Him  to  be  di- 
vine ;  who  addresses  himself  to  Him,  as  the  Mediator,  the  Way, 
the  Creator,  and  Redeemer ;  who  has  power  to  hear,  and  to  an- 
swer ;  to  make  and  to  perform  his  promises,  cannot  worship  with 
him,  who  regards  Him  as  destitute  of  this  nature,  and  these  divine 
attributes.  Nor  can  the  latter  unite  in  a  worship  which  he  con- 
ceives to  be  idolatrous. 

And  with  respect  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  The  be- 
lief in  the  divine  nature  and  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  in- 
deed, of  tlie  christian  religion  itself,  is  intimately  connected  with 
that  of  the  divine  authority  of  the  sacred  writings.  "  Great  are 
the  mysteries  of  Godliness."  And  of  all  the  truths  declared  in 
Holy  Writ,  none  are  more  mysterious  than  the  nature,  history, 
and  offices  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  mind  that  contemplates  these 
truths  as  based  on  mere  human  testimony,  must  range  in  doubt 
and  perplexity,  or  take  refuge  in  infidelity.  But  if  they  are  re- 
garded as  the  truth  of  God,  the  pride  of  human  reason  is  humbled 
before  them.  It  afterwards  exerts  its  powers  to  understand,  and 
to  apply,  but  not  to  overthrow  them.  Faith  may  repose  in  con- 
fidence upon  them,  and  produce  its  fruits  in  a  holy  life.  To  a  peo- 
ple like  the  Friends,  who  pay  so  much  attention  to  the  light  with- 
in, but  who  at  the  same  time,  acknowledge  the  deceitfulness  of 
the  human  heart,  and  the  imperfection  of  human  reason  ;  when 
they  once  fix  their  belief  on  the  testimonies  of  Scripture,  as  dicta- 
ted by  the  spirit  of  truth,  they  necessarily  become  precious ;  as 
the  landmarks,  setting  bounds  to  principle  and  to  action;  as  the 
charts,  by  which  they  may  navigate  the  ocean  of  life  in  safety;  as 
the  tests,  by  which  they  may  examine  themselves,  their  principles, 
and  feelings,  and  learn  loJiat  spirit  they  are  of.  For,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Barclay,  "  they  are  certain,  that  whatsoever  any  do,  pre- 
tending to  the  spirit,  which  is  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  should  be 
accounted  and  reckoned  a  delusion  of  the  devil."  Hence,  their 
book  of  discipline  earnestly  exorts  all  parents  and  heads  of  fami- 
lies, to  cause  the  diligent  reading  of  the  Scriptures  by  their  children; 
(Disc.  100.)  to  instruct  them  in  the  doctrines  and  precepts  there 
taught,  as  well  as  in  the  belief  of  the  inward  manifestation  and  ope- 

L 


82 

ration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  their  own  minds  ;  and  to  prevent 
their  children  reading  books  or  papers,  tending  to  create  the  least 
doubt  of  the  authenticity  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  of  those  sa- 
ving truths  declared  in  them.  {Disc.  12.)  And  hence,  by  the  same 
discipline,  ministers  are  liable  to  be  dealt  with,  who  shall  misap- 
ply, or  draw  unsound  inferences  or  conclusions  from  the  text.  (lb. 
62.)  And  a  periodical  inquiry  is  directed  to  be  made  whether 
their  ministers  are  sound  in  word  and  doctrine.  (lb.  95.) 

I  have  before  said,  that  their  great  regard  for  the  Scriptures, 
and  desire  to  comply  with  them  literally,  is  the  foundation  of  their 
peculiar  testimonies.  These  are  acknowledged  by  Decow  and 
his  party,  to  be  essential,  and  a  departure  from  them,  a  ground  of 
disownment.  (1  vol.  Evict  43,  385.)  Does  not  a  strong  argument 
result  from  this,  that  they  regard  the  Scriptures  as  divine  truth, 
and  that  this  belief  is  essential  ?  When  their  writers  would  de- 
fend these  testimonies,  they  do  not  refer  us  to  the  light  within. 
They  do  not  say  that  this  has  taught  them  that  oaths  are  unlaw- 
ful, &c.  But  they  point  to  passages  of  Scripture,  as  authority, 
and  zindoubted  authority,  on  these  subjects.  But  why  are  they 
authority  1  Because  they  are  the  truth  of  man  ?  No.  Friends 
spurn  at  the  dictation  of  their  equally  fallible  fellow  man.  But 
because  they  are  the  truth  of  God.  Or,  in  the  language  of  Fox, 
"We  call  the  Holy  Scriptures,  as  Christ,  the  apostles,  and  holy 
men  of  God  called  them,  the  words  of  God."  (  2  vol.  Fox's  Jour^ 
147.  1  vol.  Evid.  78.)  Can  it  be  that  the  rejection  of,  or  noncon- 
formity to,  particular  passages,  is  ground  of  disownment,  and  yet 
that  their  members  are  at  liberty  to  reject  the  whole?  What 
would  this  be  but  to  permit  their  fellow  man  to  select  and  garble 
as  they  please,  and  dictate  what  should  be  believed,  and  what 
might  be  disbelieved  ? 

These  testimonies  regard  \\ie  practices  of  the  members.  Robert 
Barclay  did  not  consider  deviations  from  them,  as  the  sole  causes  of 
disownment.  He  says,  "  we  being  gathered  together  into  the  belief 
of  certain  principles  and  doctrines;  those  principles  and  doc- 
trines, and  the  practices  necessarily  depending  upon  them,  are,  as 
it  were,  the  terms  that  have  drawn  us  together,  and  the  bond  by 
which  we  become  centred  into  one  body  and  fellowship,  and  dis- 
tinguished from  others.  Now,  if  any  one,  or  more,  so  engaged 
with  us,  should  arise  to  teach  any  other  doctrine  or  doctrines,  con- 


83 

trarv  to  these  which  were  the  ground  of  our  being  one,  who  can 
deny,  but  the  body  hath  power,  in  such  a  case,  to  declare  this 
is  not  according  to  the  truth  which  we  profess ;  and  therefore  we 
pronounce  such  and  such  doctrines  to  be  wrong,  with  which  we 
cannot  have  unity,  nor  yet  any  more  spiritual  fellowship  with 
those  that  hold  them  ?  And  so  cut  themselves  off  from  being 
members,  by  dissolving  the  very  bond  by  which  they  were  linked 
to  the  body."  *  And  after  proving  the  soundness  of  these  views 
from  Scripture  and  reason,  he  concludes  as  follows :  "  So  that 
from  all  that  is  above  mentioned,  we  do  safely  conclude,  that 
where  a  people  are  gathered  together  into  the  belief  of  the  princi- 
ples and  doctrines  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  if  any  of  that  people 
shall  go  from  those  principles,  and  assert  things  false  and  contra- 
ry to  what  they  have  already  received ;  such  as  stand  and  abide 
firm  in  the  faith,  have  power  by  the  spirit  of  God,  after  they  have 
used  christian  endeavors  to  convince  and  reclaim  them,  upon  their 
obstinacy,  to  separate  such,  and  to  exclude  them  from  their  spiri- 
tual fellowship  and  communion.  For  otherwise,  if  these  be  de- 
nied, farewell  to  all  Christianity,  or  to  the  maintaining  of  any 
sound  doctrine  in  the  church  of  Christ."  And,  surely,  these  re- 
marks must  be  applicable  to  doctrines  as  radical  as  those  above 
stated. 

In  1722,  the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia  issued  a  testimony, 
accompanying  Barclay's  Chatechism  and  Confession  of  Faith, 
v/hich  they  styled  "  The  ancient  testimony  of  the  people  called 
Quakers,  revived."  In  which,  after  a  long  enumeration  of  evil 
practices  which  the  apostles  testified  against,  and  through  which 
some  fell  away,  they  add,  "  and  some  others,  who  were  then  ga- 
thered into  the  belief  of  the  principles  and  doctrines  of  the  gospel 
of  Christ,  fell  from  those  principles,  as  some  have  done  in  our  day; 
in  which  cases,  such  as  stood  firm  in  the  faith,  had  power  by  the 
spirit  of  God,  after  christian  endeavors  to  convince  and  reclaim 
these  backsliders,  to  exclude  them  from  our  spiritual  fellowship 
and  communion,  as  also  the  privileges  they  had  as  fellow  mem- 
bers ;  which  power  we  know  by  good  experience,  continues  with 
us,  in  carrying  on  the  discipline  of  the  church  in  the  spirit  of  meek- 
ness." (2  vol.  Evid.  11.)  And  in  answer  to  what  was  said  in  ar- 
gument, as  to  the  extent  of  the  discipline  appearing  in  its  intro- 

*  Anarchy  of  the  Ranters,  pages  54, 55,  56,  57, 58, 59. 


84 

ductory  paragraph,  I  would  observe  that  this  testimony  was  is- 
sued soon  after  that  introduction  commences,  by  referring  to  it, 
and  may  be  considered  as  in  a  measure  explanatory  of  it.  But 
the  discipline  itself  is  not  silent  on  this  subject.  Its  object  is  de- 
clared to  be,  "  that  all  may  be  preserved  in  unity  of  faith  and  p-ac- 
tice."  Now,  what  is  unity  of  faith  I  Does  it  not  require  unity  of 
interpretation;  unity  oi  views,  of  the  meaning  of  texts  of  Scrip- 
ture, involving  important  doctrines  ?  It  does  not  require  submis- 
sion to  the  dictation  of  others.  But  it  does  require  an  accommo- 
dation of  opinion  to  a  common  standard,  in  order  that  they  may 
be  of  one  faith.  This  need  not  extend  to  subordinate  matters  ; 
but  liberal  as  the  society  has  always  been  in  this  respect,  it  has 
spread  before  its  members  the  Chatechism  and  Confession  of  Faith 
and  Apology  of  Barclay,  as  guides  to  opinion,  and  it  will  not  suf- 
fer even  the  less  essential  doctrines  there  promulgated,  to  be  ques- 
tioned, if  it  be  done  in  a  contentious  or  obstinate  spirit,  without 
subjecting  the  offender  to  discipline.  This  is  plainly  indicated  in 
the  testimony  above  referred  to.  {Disc.  12.)  And  with  respect  to 
the  more  important  doctrines  now  in  dispute,  the  discipline  ex- 
pressly says,  "  Should  any  deny  the  divinity  of  our  Lord  and  Sa- 
viour Jesus  Christ,  the  immediate  revelation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or 
the  authenticity  of  the  Scriptures;  as  it  is  manifest  they  are  not 
one  in  faith  loith  us,  the  monthly  meeting  where  the  party  belongs, 
having  extended  due  care  for  the  help  and  benefit  of  the  individu- 
al without  effect,  ought  to  declare  the  same,  and  issue  their  testi- 
mony accordingly."  {Disc.  23.  1  vol.  Evid.  385.) 

In  addition  to  all  this,  several  respectable  witnesses  testify  that 
the  denial  of  these  doctrines  has  always  been  held  to  be  ground 
of  disownment,  and  they  adduce  many  instances  of  actual  dis- 
ownment  for  these  causes.  (1  vol.  Evid.  60,  99,  108,  171,  306.) 

Upon  reviewing  the  testimony,  I  am  satisfied  that  the  societ}' 
of  Friends  regard  these  doctrines  as  essential,  and  that  they  have 
the  power,  by  their  discipline,  to  disown  those  who  openly  call 
them  in  question. 

But  do  the  Arch  street  meeting,  and  its  subordinate  meetings, 
hold  to  these  doctrines  ?  It  is  so  alleged ;  and  it  is  not  denied.  The 
denial,  if  it  be  one  at  all,  is  that  these  are  established  doctrines  of 
the  society  of  Friends.  The  controversies  between  the  parties, 
so  far  as  they  were  doctrinal,  show   that  the  party  called  "  Or- 


85 

thodox"  insisted  on  these  doctrines.  The  ofiensive  extracts  of 
the  meeting  for  sufferings,  declares  them.  (1  vol.  Evid.  217.  2  vol 
lb.  414.)  And  these  have  been  pubhshed  by  the  yearly  meeting 
of  that  party,  in  1828.  And  there  is  much  testimony  by  witnes- 
ses, that  the  Arch  street  meeting  adheres  to  them.  (1  vol  Evid. 
60,  99.)  and  none  to  the  contrary. 

So  that  it  appears  to  me,  that  Hendrickson  has  sufficiently  es- 
tablished tiiat  the  preparative  meeting  at  Chesterfield,  which  he 
represents,  may,  so  far  as  respects  doctrine,  justly  claim  to  be  of 
the  society  of  Friends. 

But  it  is  insisted,  that  the  other  party  stands  on  equal  ground 
in  this  respect ;  that  they  arc  now,  or  certainly  have  been,  in 
unity  with  that  society ;  a  society  in  which  no  public  declaration 
of  faith  is  necessary :  and  that  hence,  independent  of  any  proof 
they  may  have  offered,  they  are  to  be  presumed  to  be  sound  in 
the  faith.  And  that  any  inquiry  into  their  doctrines,  further  than 
as  they  have  publicly  declared  them,  is  inquisitorial,  and  an  inva- 
sion of  their  rights  of  conscience. 

If  a  fact  be  necessary  to  be  ascertained  by  this  court,  for  the 
purpose  of  settling  a  question  of  property,  it  is  its  duty  to  ascer- 
tain it.  And  this  must  be  done  by  such  evidence  as  the  nature  of 
the  case  admits  of.* 

I  have  already  stated,  that  the  answer  of  Decow  appeared  to 
me  indirectly  to  deny  that  the  faith  of  Friends  embraces  the  enu- 
merated doctrines  insisted  on  by  Hendrickson,  and  to  claim  free- 
dom of  opinion  on  those  points.  I  feel  moi'e  assured  that  this  is 
the  true  meaning  of  the  answer,  from  the  course  taken  in  the 
cross-examination  of  the  witnesses,  in  which  an  evident  effort  ap- 
pears, to  show  a  want  of  uniformity  among  ancient  writers  of  the 
society,  when  tieating  on  these  subjects ;  and  also,  from  the 
grounds  taken  by  the  counsel  in  the  argument  of  this  cause.  It 
was  here  most  explicitly,  and  I  may  add,  most  ingeniously  and 
eloquently  insisted,  not  only  that  these  doctrines  do  not  belong  to 
the  faith  of  Friends,  but  that  they  cannot;  because  they  must  in- 
terfere with  another  acknowledged  fundamental  principle  of  the 
society — the  guidance  of  the  light  within.  Now  if  it  be  estab- 
lished, that  these  doctrines   are   part   of  the   religious  faith  of 

*  3  Merrivale,  41 1,  413,  417.     3  Dessaussure,  557. 


86 

Friends,  can  it  be  necessary,  under  these  pleadings,  to  prove  that 
Decow's  party  do  not  hold  to  the  faith  of  Friends?  Decow  says, 
"  my  party,  or  preparative  meeting,  hold  the  faith  of  Friends,  but 
these  doctrines  are  no  part  of  that  faith;  therefore  we  do  not,  as 
Friends,  hold  to  these  doctrines."  But  Fi'iends  do  hold  these  doc- 
trines: Decow's  pai'ty  does  not;  therefore  they  are  not  one,  with 
Friends,  in  religious  doctrine.  And  it  will  not  materially  vary 
the  argument,  that  they  are  at  liberty  to  hold  them,  or  not,  as  the 
light  within  shall  direct.  It  is  belief  which  gives  character  to  a 
sect,  and  right  of  membership  to  an  individual.  Liberty  has  the 
same  practical  effect  as  unbelief,  when  applied  to  an  essential  doc- 
trine of  a  religious  society.  An  individual  cannot  avail  himself 
of  his  faith  in  any  doctrine  which  he  is  at  liberty  to  believe  or  not. 
Were  it  otherwise,  we  might  all  be  members  of  any  religious  so- 
ciety whatever. 

But  as  I  may  have  mistaken  the  meaning  of  Decow's  answer, 
which  is  certainly  not  very  explicit  in  this  particular,  I  will  next 
turn  to  the  evidence,  and  discover,  if  I  can,  w^hat  is  the  fair  re- 
sult of  the  examination  of  that. 

Decow  offers  no  testimony  respecting  the  belief  of  his  party  in 
the  particular  doctrines  in  question.  His  witnesses  refuse  to  an- 
swer on  these  points,*  and  his  party  protest  against  all  creeds,  or 
public  declarations  of  faith,  as  an  abridgment  of  christian  liberty. 
Having  no  such  public  declaration  to  resort  to,  we  must  ascertain 
the  truth  from  other  sources,  so  far  as  it  is  necessary  to  be  as- 
certained. 

Several  public  addresses  were  issued  by  the  party  called  "  Hicks- 
ite."  about  the  time  of  the  separation,  setting  forth  their  reasons 
for  it.  In  that  of  April  twenty-first,  1827,  it  is  declared  that, 
"  the  unity  of  this  body  is  interrupted,  that  a  division  exists  among 
us,  developing  in  its  progress,  vieics  ichich  appear  771  compatible 
with  each  other,  and  feelings  averse  to  a  reconciliation.  Doc- 
ti-ines  held  by  one  part  of  the  society,  and  which  we  believe  to 
be  so7md  and  edifying,  are  pronounced  by  the  other  part  to  be 
unsound  and  spurious."  A  prominent  complaint,  in  these  papers, 
is,  that  Friends  travelling  in  the  ministry,  had  been  publicly  op- 
posed in  their  meetings  for  worship,  and  labored  with  contrary  to 

*  1  vol.  Evid.  pages  387,  381, 406,  475.  2  vol.  Ibid,  pages  13,  90,  206. 


87 

the  discipline.  Upon  looking  into  the  testimony,  we  find  that  the 
prominent  individual  who  furnished  occasion  for  these  complaints, 
is  EHas  Hicks;  and  that  the  interruptions  and  treatment  of  him, 
deemed  exceptionable,  had  their  origin  in  the  doctrines  which  he 
preached.  (1  vol  Evid.  308,  474,  478.)  Can  it  be  denied,  then, 
that  difterences  in  doctrine  existed,  and  differences  of  that  serious 
nature  calculated  to  destroy  the  unity  of  the  society,  and  which 
had  their  full  share  in  producing  the  separation  which  took 
place. 

Decow  has  introduced  several  witnesses,  who  testify,  and  no 
doubt  conscientiously,  that  they  believe  they  hold  the  ancient  faith 
of  Friends,  but  they  refuse  to  tell  us  what  this  faith  is,  in  reference 
to  these  enumerated  doctrines.  We  cannot  give  much  weight  to 
opinion,  where  we  should  \\dMe  facts.  The  belief  should  refer  to 
specific  doctrines,  that  the  court  may  judge  as  well  as  the  wit- 
nesses, whether  it  was  the  ancient  faith  or  not.  The  court,  in 
that  case,  would  have  an  opportunity  of  estimating  the  accuracy 
of  the  knowledge  upon  which  the  belief  is  founded. 

How  stands  the  case,  then,  upon  the  proofs?  A  fund  was  cre- 
ated for  the  education  of  the  poor  children  of  a  certain  prepara- 
tive meeting  of  the  religious  society  of  Friends.  That  body  has 
lately  become  separated.  Its  unity  is  broken;  the  vieics  of  its 
members  are  incompatible;  and  doctrines  held  by  one  party  to  be 
sound,  are  pronoimced  by  the  other  party  to  be  ^insound.  And  two 
distinct  meetings  exist  at  this  time,  and  each  claims  the  guardian- 
ship and  use  of  this  fund.  For  the  safety  of  the  debtor,  these  par- 
ties have  been  directed  to  interplead,  and  to  show  their  respective 
pretensions  to  be  a  preparative  meeting  of  Friends.  One  of  them 
sets  out  certain  doctrines  as  characteristic  of  the  society,  and 
that  they  adhere  to  them,  and  that  the  other  party  does  not.  They 
go  on  and  prove  their  case,  so  far  as  respects  themselves.  The 
other  party  alledge  that  they  hold  the  faith  of  Friends ;  but  instead 
of  proving  it,  they  call  upon  their  adversaries  to  prove  the  con- 
trai'y.  In  my  opinion  it  was  incumbent  upon  each  of  the  parties 
to  make  out  their  case,  if  they  would  stand  upon  equal  terms,  on 
this  question  of  doctrine.  And  especially  upon  this  preparative 
meeting,  connected  as  it  is,  with  a  yearly  meeting,  which,  in  point 
of  form  at  least,  is  not  the  yearly  meeting  that  was  in  existence 


88 

at  the  creation  of  the  fund;  and  which  has  furnished  prima  fa- 
cia evidence  that  it  has  witiidrawn,  or  separated  from  that  meet- 
ing, in  consequence  of  disputes  in  some  measure  doctrinal.  The 
court  will  not  force  either  party  in  this  cause  to  declare  or  prove 
their  religious  doctrines.  But  if  doctrines  be  important,  the  party 
which  would  avail  themselves  of  their  doctrines,  must  prove  them. 
They  are  peculiarly  within  their  knowledge,  and  although  they 
may  have  the  right  to  withhold  them,  yet  if  they  do,  they  cannot 
expect  success  in  their  cause.  The  money  must  be  awarded  to 
that  party  which  supports,  by  proper  proof,  its  pretensions  to  it. 

Under  this  view  of  the  case,  I  deem  it  unnecessary  to  attempt 
any  further  investigation  of  the  doctrines  of  the  party  called 
"  Hicksite."  And  if  ascertained,  I  certainly  would  not  inquire, 
as  an  officer  of  this  court,  whether  they  are  right  or  wrong.  It 
is  enough,  that  it  is  not  made  to  appear'  that  they  correspond  with 
the  religious  faith  of  the  society  of  Friends. 

I  would  merely  add,  that  if  it  be  true,  that  the  "  Orthodox  " 
party  believe  in  the  doctrines  above  mentioned,  and  the  "  Hicks- 
ite "  party  consider  that  every  member  has  a  right  to  his  own  be- 
lief on  those  subjects,  they  well  might  say  that  their  difterences 
were  destructive  of  their  unity.  If  their  members  and  ministers 
exercise  perfect  freedom  of  thought  and  speech  on  these  points, 
their  temples  for  worship,  and  it  is  to  be  feared,  their  own  hearts, 
would  soon  be  deserted  by  the  peace-loving  spirit  of  their  Mas- 
ter. There  is  an  essential  incompatibility  in  adverse  views,  with 
regard  to  these  doctrines.  Tlie  divinity  of  Christ,  and  the  au- 
thenticity of  the  Scriptures,  cannot  be  debated  in  a  worshipping 
assembly,  without  defeating  the  proper  purposes  of  meeting  to- 
gether. 

And  upon  this  supposition  too,  the  propriety,  as  well  as  legality, 
of  this  court's  noticing  the  doctrines  of  the  preparative  meeting, 
which  is  to  superintend  the  expenditure  of  this  fund,  is  too  mani- 
fest to  admit  of  doubt.  We  have  already  seen,  by  reference  to 
the  discipline  of  this  society,  with  what  earnestness  they  endea- 
vor to  educate  their  children  in  the  knowledge  and  belief  of  the 
Scriptures;  and  whoever  looks  into  that  discipline,  cannot  but 
discover  their  anxiety  to  train  them  up  in  their  own  peculiar 
views  of  the  christian  religion.  To  eftect  these  purposes,  their 
yearly  meeting  has   directed  their  attention  to   the  subject   of 


89 

schools.     "  The  education  of  our  youtli,'"  says  the  discipline,  "  in 
piety  and  virtue,  and  giving  them  useful  learning  under  the  tui- 
tion of  religious,  prudent  persons,  having  for  many  years  engaged 
the  solid  attention  of  this  meeting,  and  advices  thereon  having 
been  from   time  to  time  issued  to  the  several  subordinate  meet- 
ings, it  is  renewedly  desired,  that  quarterly,  monthly  and  prepar- 
ative meetings  may  be  excited  to  proper  exertions  for  the  institu- 
tion  and  support  of  schools ;  for  want  of  which,  it  has  been  ob- 
served, that  children  have  been  committed  to  the  care  of  tran- 
sient persons  of  doubtful  character,  and  sometimes  of  very  cor- 
rupt minds."     "  It  is,  therefore,  indispensably  incumbent  on  us,  to 
guard  them  against  this  danger,  and  procure  such  tutors,  of  our  own 
religious  persuasion,  as  are  not  only  capable  of  instructing  them  in 
useful  learning,  to  fit  them  for  the  business  of  this  life,  but  to  train 
them  in  the  knowledge  of  their  duty   to  God,  and  one  towards 
another."     Under  this  discipline,  and  by  the  exertions  of  superi- 
or meetings,  {2  vol.  Emd.  345,  346, 436,  437,)  as  well  as  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting,  this  school  at  Cross- 
wicks  was  established,  and  this  fund  raised  for  its  support.    It  thus 
appears,  that  the  fund  was  intended  to  promote,  not  merely  the  secu- 
lar knowledge  of  the  pupils,  but  their  growth  in  the  religious  princi- 
ples deemed  fundamental  by  this  people ;  or  at  least,  to  prevent, 
through  the  instruction  of  teachers  of  other  religious  principles,  or 
wholly  without  principle,  the  alienation  of  the  minds  of  their  chil- 
dren from  the  faith  of  their   fathers.     Could  these  meetings,  and 
these  contributors,  have  contemplated  that  this  fund  should  fall  in- 
to  the  hands  of  men   of  opposite    opinions,  or  of  no  opinions? 
Could  those  men,  who   acknowledged  the  obligation  of  this  disci- 
pline, enjoining,  as  it  does,  upon  parents  and  heads  of  families  "to 
instruct  their  children  in  the  doctrines  and  precepts  of  the  chris- 
tian religion,  as  contained  in  the   Scriptures,"  and  "  to  prevent 
their  children  from  having  or  reading  books  and  papers,  tending  to 
prejudice  the  profession  of  the  christian  religion,  or,  to  create  the 
least  doubt  concerning  the  authenticity  of  the  holy  Scriptures,  or  of 
those  saving  truths  declared  in  them,  lest  their  infant  and  feeble 
minds  should  be  poisoned  thereby."     I  say,  is  it  possible  such  men 
could  have  expected  that  their  children  should  be  taught  by  Elias 
Hicks,  that  the  Scriptures  "  have  been  the  cause  of  four  fold  more 
harm  than  good  to  Christendom,  since  the  apostles'  days : "  and 


90 

ihat,  "  to  suppose  a  written  rule  necessary,  or  ynuch  useful,  is  to 
impeach  the  divine  character? '*  Or.  that  they  should  be  taught 
by  him,  or  by  any  one  else,  that  eaclr  individual  inust  interpret 
them  for  himself,  entirely  untrammelled  by  the  opinions  of  man : 
and  that  the  dictates  of  the  light  within  are  of  paramount  author- 
ity to  Scripture,  even  when  opposing  its  precepts  ?  Surely  this 
would  be  a  breach  of  trust,  and  a  perversion  of  the  fund,  which 
the  arm  of  this  court  not  only  has.  but  ought  to  have,  power  to 
prevent. 

I  would  not  be  understood  to  impute  the  doctrines  of  Elias 
Hicks  to  that  party  which  unwillingly  bears  his  name.  Nor  .do  I 
mean  to  intimate  that  they  would  abuse  this  trust.  But  I  have 
endeavored  to  shew,  that  doctrines  may  justly  have  an  influence 
on  the  decision  of  the  question  now  before  us.  And  without  co- 
ming to  any  conclusion  with  respect  to  thei7'  doctrines,  I  am  of 
opinion,  that  this  fund  should  be  aw^arded  to  that  meeting  which 
has  shewn,  at  least  to  my  satisfaction,  that  they  agree  in  doc- 
trine with  the  society  of  Friends,  as  it  existed  at  the  origin  of  this 
trust. 

I  do,  therefore,  respectfully  I'ecommend  to  His  Excellency  the 
Chancellor,  to  decree  upon  this  bill  of  interpleader,  that  the  prin- 
cipal and  interest  due  on  the  said  bond,  of  right  belong,  and  are 
payable  to  the  said  Joseph  Hendrickson ;  and  that  he  be  permit- 
ted to  proceed  on  his  original  bill  of  complaint,  or  otherwise,  ac- 
cording to  the  rules  and  practice  of  the  court  of  chancery. 

GEORC4E  K.  DRAKE. 


Date  Due 

1  ml  —1  — 

H 

PRINTED 

IN   U.   S.   A. 

>« 


^,:%i 


